Post-Conviction Relief: What Can You Do When Your Trial Was Unfair?

A direct appeal is limited to what appears in the official trial record. The appellate court reviews transcripts, rulings, and motions to determine whether the trial judge committed legal errors. Post-conviction relief, by contrast, addresses matters that never made it into that record. Under New York CPL Section 440.10, a defendant may raise claims involving constitutional violations, prosecutorial misconduct that went undetected at trial, or the failure of defense counsel to investigate critical facts. 

The motion is filed with the original trial court rather than an appellate court, which means the judge who presided over the case (or a successor ) evaluates whether the conviction should stand. This procedural distinction is significant because it allows the introduction of affidavits, expert testimony, and documentary evidence that were unavailable or overlooked during the trial. For defendants who have already exhausted their direct appeals, a post-conviction relief motion under CPL 440.10 may serve as the last available state-level remedy before pursuing federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.

Courts describe a PCR petition as a "collateral attack" on a conviction, meaning it does not question whether the trial evidence was sufficient to convict. Instead, it asks whether the process that produced the conviction complied with the defendant's constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process, and the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches. 

When any of these protections are compromised during a criminal case, the resulting conviction may rest on an unreliable foundation. Post-conviction relief exists to correct that structural failure. In New York, the CPL 440.10 motion has effectively replaced the common-law writ of coram nobis for most post-judgment challenges, consolidating the process into a single statutory framework that courts apply consistently.

The landmark 1984 decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, established the two-part test that governs every ineffective assistance claim. First, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different but for counsel's errors. Meeting both prongs is essential. 

Common examples of deficient performance include failure to investigate alibi witnesses, failure to retain necessary expert witnesses, neglect to file critical pretrial motions, or failure to advise a non-citizen client about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The Supreme Court reinforced this last point in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), holding that defense attorneys must inform clients of deportation risks associated with a plea. A post-conviction relief attorney who understands these standards will meticulously compare what trial counsel actually did against what a reasonably competent attorney would have done under the same circumstances.

Ineffective assistance claims are not confined to what happened at trial. A significant number of PCR petitions involve errors during plea negotiations or sentencing proceedings. If trial counsel provided incorrect advice about the maximum sentence, failed to communicate a favorable plea offer from the prosecution, or neglected to present mitigating evidence at sentencing, those failures may satisfy the Strickland standard. 

In Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to effective counsel extends to plea bargaining, and a lawyer's bad advice that leads a defendant to reject a favorable plea can constitute prejudice. Under New York law, these claims are raised through CPL 440.10 because the relevant facts ( what counsel advised privately, what investigations were never conducted) typically do not appear in the trial record and therefore cannot be addressed on direct appeal. For defendants facing consequences related to criminal defense matters or sentencing advocacy, addressing counsel's failures at the earliest opportunity is critical.

Under CPL Section 440.10(1)(g), a defendant may move to vacate a judgment when new evidence has been discovered that could not have been produced at trial with due diligence and is of such character that it would have created a probability of a more favorable verdict. This is a demanding standard. The evidence must be genuinely new (not merely newly appreciated ) and it must be material enough to have likely changed the outcome. 

Examples include DNA test results that exclude the defendant, recantations by key prosecution witnesses supported by credible corroboration, or forensic evidence that undermines the methodology used at trial. A skilled post-conviction relief attorney conducts an independent reinvestigation of the case, often hiring private investigators, consulting with forensic experts, and obtaining records through Freedom of Information requests. The goal is to build a factual record so compelling that the court has no reasonable basis to deny a hearing.

Even when the evidence is strong, courts retain discretion to decide a CPR 440.10 motion on the papers alone without holding a hearing. Under CPL Section 440.30(4), the court may deny a hearing if the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief. The attorney's task is to ensure the written submissions raise genuine issues of fact that cannot be resolved without testimony. 

This means submitting detailed affidavits from witnesses, expert reports that contradict trial evidence, and declarations from the defendant explaining what information was never communicated to trial counsel. When post-conviction relief counsel presents a thorough evidentiary package, the court is far more likely to order a hearing where the claims can be tested through cross-examination. Practitioners handling matters involving criminal evidence or criminal appeals understand that the quality of the initial submission often determines whether the case advances or dies on paper.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a defendant seeking federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 must file within one year of the date the state conviction becomes final. Missing this deadline generally eliminates access to federal review permanently. At the state level, New York courts evaluate whether the defendant could have raised the claim earlier. CPL Section 440.10(2)(c) authorizes denial of a motion if the grounds were available at the time of a prior motion or appeal but were not raised. This means that a defendant who files multiple successive motions raising issues that could have been included in the first petition risks forfeiture of those claims. Post-conviction relief demands that the petitioner present all viable arguments in a single, comprehensive filing. An attorney experienced in these procedural requirements will conduct a thorough review of the entire case history (including prior appeals and motions ) to ensure that no claim is inadvertently waived.

Filing a PCR petition without adequate legal guidance creates risks that extend far beyond a simple denial. Under New York law, a court's denial of a CPL 440.10 motion on the merits may preclude the defendant from raising the same issues again. A pro se petitioner who submits an incomplete or poorly argued motion may unknowingly sacrifice the strongest available claims. 

The procedural bar rules are unforgiving: once the court rules that a particular ground could have been raised but was not, that issue is generally closed. This reality makes the involvement of qualified post-conviction relief counsel not merely advisable but essential. The difference between a meticulously prepared petition and a deficient one can be the difference between a vacated conviction and a lifetime behind bars. For individuals navigating related challenges involving probation violation consequences or seeking criminal record expungement, early consultation with experienced counsel is equally vital.