People ex rel. Bush v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Bush v. Riley

107 A.D.3d 1249, 966 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedJune 20, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.3d 1249 (People ex rel. Bush v. Riley) 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. Bush v. Riley, 107 A.D.3d 1249, 966 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.), entered May 2, 2012, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was arrested pursuant to a parole violation warrant. The final parole revocation hearing was adjourned at the request of petitioner and his counsel, as they had not received the requisite 14-day notice (see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [in]). While awaiting decision following the final parole revocation hearing, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the parole revocation proceeding was improper. County [1250]*1250Court denied petitioner’s application and petitioner now appeals.

Petitioner’s arguments — concerning late notice of the final parole revocation hearing and validity of the parole violation warrant — are properly raised on direct appeal from the parole revocation decision and, accordingly, habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see People ex rel. Wallace v Lavalley, 102 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2013]; People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]; People ex rel. Lopez v People, 79 AD3d 1555, 1556 [2010]). Furthermore, the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Wallace v Lavalley, 102 AD3d at 1039; People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d at 1316). Given the foregoing, we also reject petitioner’s argument that County Court improperly failed to assign counsel to represent him (see People ex rel. Williams v La Vallee, 19 NY2d 238, 240-241 [1967]; see also People ex rel. Ferguson v Campbell, 186 AD2d 319, 319 [1992]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., 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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.), entered May 2, 2012, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was arrested pursuant to a parole violation warrant. The final parole revocation hearing was adjourned at the request of petitioner and his counsel, as they had not received the requisite 14-day notice (see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [in]). While awaiting decision following the final parole revocation hearing, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the parole revocation proceeding was improper. County [1250]*1250Court denied petitioner’s application and petitioner now appeals.

Petitioner’s arguments — concerning late notice of the final parole revocation hearing and validity of the parole violation warrant — are properly raised on direct appeal from the parole revocation decision and, accordingly, habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see People ex rel. Wallace v Lavalley, 102 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2013]; People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]; People ex rel. Lopez v People, 79 AD3d 1555, 1556 [2010]). Furthermore, the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Wallace v Lavalley, 102 AD3d at 1039; People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d at 1316). Given the foregoing, we also reject petitioner’s argument that County Court improperly failed to assign counsel to represent him (see People ex rel. Williams v La Vallee, 19 NY2d 238, 240-241 [1967]; see also People ex rel. Ferguson v Campbell, 186 AD2d 319, 319 [1992]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 1249, 966 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-bush-v-riley-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack