People ex rel. Burgess v. Ercole
This text of 70 A.D.3d 735 (People ex rel. Burgess v. Ercole) 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.
Opinion
—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), entered August 2, 2007, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“A writ of habeas corpus may not be used for review of issues that have been, or could have been, reviewed on direct appeal or by a postjudgment motion addressed to the court in which an underlying judgment of conviction was rendered” (People ex rel. Dushain v Ercole, 64 AD3d 669 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]; see People ex rel. Abdul-Aziz v Marshall, 68 AD3d 902 [2009]; People ex rel. Barnes v Fischer, 303 AD2d 526 [2003]). Here, the petitioner raised the identical issue in two prior unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief under CPL article 440. Leave to appeal from the orders determining those motions was denied. Where a petitioner presents no fundamental constitutional or statutory claim that was not already reviewed on a prior CPL article 440 motion, the petition is procedurally barred (see People ex rel. Almeyda v Schultz, 18 AD3d 582, 582-583 [2005]).
Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without conducting a hearing. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 A.D.3d 735, 894 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-burgess-v-ercole-nyappdiv-2010.