Criminal Procedure Law §440.10 specifies the grounds and procedures for a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction. In some respects, it is a codification of a “coram nobis” motion available under the common law (sometimes spelled quorum nobis - though I believe the correct spelling is "coram nobis").  However, courts have held that that §440.10 did not completely preempt common law and a coram nobis motion is still available to a defendant for situations not covered in the statute. See People v. Bachert, 69 N.Y. 2d 593, 599 (1987).

Initial research into the area can be confusing as many commentators and courts use the term coram nobis synonymously with a motion under Criminal Procedure Law §440.10. For the purposes of this article, I will use the two motions interchangeably. In any event, it is clear that either a coram nobis motion or a motion pursuant to the §440.10 should not be used as alternative to an appeal to a higher court. See People v. Cooks, 67 N.Y.2d 100, 103 (1986).

            In terms of local and town courts, a coram nobis motion often comes into play for the unsuspecting motorist who pleads guilty to a traffic offense only to later learn that his or her driver’s license will be suspended. A New York State driver’s license will be suspended if a motorist is convicted of three speeding tickets in an eighteen month period or if a motorist has eleven or more points on his or her license. Such a motorist will undoubtedly suffer an undue burden and hardship without a driver’s license (loss of employment, inability to transport children or elderly relatives to name a few). One remedy available under the law is to file a coram nobis motion to any Court where one of the traffic convictions occurred. 

            In this instance, the motorist may not have the grounds for vacating a conviction under §440.10 and will have to rely on the common-law coram nobis motion to set aside a conviction “in the interests of justice,” which can be granted in the discretion of the trial court. See People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124 (1996); see also U.S. ex. rel. Ortiz v. Wallack, 237 F.Supp. 834 (1965).

I have often successfully petitioned local and town courts to vacate a traffic conviction after the fact. Typically, a client will simply plead guilty to a traffic violation through the mail or in Court, without the advice of legal counsel, and be completely unaware that they can lose their driving privileges if they are convicted of three speeding violations in 18 months or if they receive 11 or more points. Additionally, many clients will “go it alone” and handle a traffic matter without an attorney and miscalculate the number of points they will incur by entering a guilty plea or miscalculate the existing number of points on their license. Next comes the ominous letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles warning of an impending license suspension. In comes a coram nobis motion to, hopefully, save the day. 

When making a coram nobis motion a practitioner would be wise to rely on both §440.10 and the common-law theory. Limiting your client’s grounds to the enumerated grounds listed in the statute or trying to creatively fashion facts to fit into the statue could be fatal to your application. Courts are not obligated to explain the collateral consequences of a guilty plea to a defendant, though often courts do warn defendants of the possibility of losing driving privileges. Also many local and town court judges, especially in the larger metro areas, are in the habit of giving a standard explanation of a defendant’s rights, such as the right to counsel and the right to request an adjournment to obtain counsel, and the potential consequences of a guilty plea just prior to calling a traffic docket. 

I find the interests of justice argument much stronger in these situations. One can explain that even when the Court gives such instructions that the client was not there at the beginning of the docket to hear it or was under the mistaken belief that they would not suffer from the consequences laid out by the Court. Furthermore, I have found that specific arguments supporting a finding of undue hardship applicable to a particular defendant, such as the potential loss of employment, inability to attend school or being the sole means of transportation for a dependent, are much stronger than a generalized argument of hardship. 

For more information or for a free consultation regarding coram nobis motions, please contact me at Lorenzo@napolitanolaw.com.