People ex rel. Camarano v. Costello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Camarano v. Costello

306 A.D.2d 885, 760 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6914

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 885 (People ex rel. Camarano v. Costello) 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. Camarano v. Costello, 306 A.D.2d 885, 760 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Shaheen, J.), entered April 16, 2002, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. In November 1999, while released on parole supervision on a sentence of 15 years to life, petitioner was charged with several offenses and pleaded guilty to, inter alia, a felony in satisfaction of those charges. On November 9, 2000, petitioner was sentenced on the new conviction to an aggregate term of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years. Because petitioner was convicted of offenses committed while on parole supervision, his parole was revoked by operation of law (see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]). Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, he was not entitled to a final revocation hearing (see People ex rel. Melendez v Bennett, 291 AD2d 590, 591 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 602 [2002]; Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 288 AD2d 572, 573 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 725 [2002]; Matter of Warley v Rodriguez, 145 AD2d 901 [1988]). Contrary to his further contention, we conclude that petitioner was not held illegally past his conditional release date on the new conviction. [886]*886The original sentence was interrupted by the declaration of delinquency (see Penal Law § 70.40 [3] [a]; Cruz, 288 AD2d at 573) and the sentence on the new conviction runs consecutively to the sentence on the original conviction (see § 70.25 [2-a]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Shaheen, J.), entered April 16, 2002, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. In November 1999, while released on parole supervision on a sentence of 15 years to life, petitioner was charged with several offenses and pleaded guilty to, inter alia, a felony in satisfaction of those charges. On November 9, 2000, petitioner was sentenced on the new conviction to an aggregate term of imprisonment of IV2 to 3 years. Because petitioner was convicted of offenses committed while on parole supervision, his parole was revoked by operation of law (see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]). Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, he was not entitled to a final revocation hearing (see People ex rel. Melendez v Bennett, 291 AD2d 590, 591 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 602 [2002]; Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 288 AD2d 572, 573 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 725 [2002]; Matter of Warley v Rodriguez, 145 AD2d 901 [1988]). Contrary to his further contention, we conclude that petitioner was not held illegally past his conditional release date on the new conviction. [886]*886The original sentence was interrupted by the declaration of delinquency (see Penal Law § 70.40 [3] [a]; Cruz, 288 AD2d at 573) and the sentence on the new conviction runs consecutively to the sentence on the original conviction (see § 70.25 [2-a]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 885, 760 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-camarano-v-costello-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack