People ex rel. Brown v. Artus

64 A.D.3d 1064, 883 N.Y.S.2d 634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 23, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 64 A.D.3d 1064 (People ex rel. Brown v. Artus) 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
People ex rel. Brown v. Artus, 64 A.D.3d 1064, 883 N.Y.S.2d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 27, 2008 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 2002, petitioner was convicted by a jury of burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and resisting arrest and was sentenced to a minimum prison term of 22 years. Petitioner’s convictions were upheld on direct appeal (People v Brown, 16 AD3d 430, 431 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY3d 852 [2005]). He commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging various constitutional violations and certain jurisdictional defects. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application without a hearing, prompting this appeal.

Habeas corpus relief is unavailable where, as here, petitioner’s arguments could have been raised either in the context of a collateral motion or upon a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see People ex rel. Fulton v Lape, 61 AD3d 1227, 1227-1228 [2009]). Moreover, a review of the record reflects that petitioner has unsuccessfully raised the identical issues in multiple prior state and federal habeas corpus proceedings. Under such circumstances, we perceive no basis upon which to depart from traditional orderly procedure and Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed (see People ex rel. Franza v Lape, 61 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2009]).

[1065]*1065Cardona, EJ., Feters, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

People ex rel. Wright v. Coveny
2020 NY Slip Op 06332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People ex rel. Brown v. Griffin
123 A.D.3d 1281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People ex rel. Vickery v. Walsh
100 A.D.3d 1116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People ex rel. Tislon v. Rock
84 A.D.3d 1606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People ex rel. Lainfiesta v. Lape
83 A.D.3d 1303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People ex rel. Jackson v. Morgenthau
79 A.D.3d 1540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People ex rel. Piazza v. Cunningham
75 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People ex rel. Joseph v. Napoli
75 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.D.3d 1064, 883 N.Y.S.2d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-brown-v-artus-nyappdiv-2009.