Matter of Simpson v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Simpson v. Annucci

134 A.D.3d 1264, 19 N.Y.S.3d 916

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 2015

Docket519545

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 1264 (Matter of Simpson v. Annucci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Simpson v. Annucci, 134 A.D.3d 1264, 19 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with having unauthorized contact with an employee of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and making a third-party telephone call. At the tier III disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner pleaded guilty to these charges. The Hearing Officer, in turn, issued a guilty disposition and imposed a suspended penalty of three months in the special housing unit. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the determination is based by his knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty to the charges (see Matter of Pinkney v Goord, 302 AD2d 820, 821 [2003]; Matter of Shire v Coombe, 240 AD2d 823 [1997]). Petitioner failed to challenge the validity of his guilty plea either at the disciplinary hearing or in his administrative appeal and his claims that the disciplinary rules at issue are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad have not been preserved for our review due to petitioner’s failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Cornwall v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2010]; Matter of McCollum v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1194, 1194 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 703 [2009]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the determination of guilt.

McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lahtinen, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with having unauthorized contact with an employee of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and making a third-party telephone call. At the tier III disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner pleaded guilty to these charges. The Hearing Officer, in turn, issued a guilty disposition and imposed a suspended penalty of three months in the special housing unit. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the determination is based by his knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty to the charges (see Matter of Pinkney v Goord, 302 AD2d 820, 821 [2003]; Matter of Shire v Coombe, 240 AD2d 823 [1997]). Petitioner failed to challenge the validity of his guilty plea either at the disciplinary hearing or in his administrative appeal and his claims that the disciplinary rules at issue are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad have not been preserved for our review due to petitioner’s failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Cornwall v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2010]; Matter of McCollum v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1194, 1194 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 703 [2009]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the determination of guilt.

McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 1264, 19 N.Y.S.3d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-simpson-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack