People ex rel. Clark v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Clark v. Riley

204 A.D.2d 669, 614 N.Y.S.2d 234

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 23, 1994·Published

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered January 24, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since all of the petitioner’s contentions could have been reviewed on a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction, they are not subject to review by a habeas corpus proceeding (see, People ex rel. Govan v Waldron, 175 AD2d 820). The proceeding was, therefore, properly dismissed without a hearing (see, People ex rel. Morgan v Berry, 149 AD2d 752; People ex rel. McNair v Bantum, 123 AD2d 800). Furthermore, the facts of this case do not indicate that there was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights which would warrant a departure from traditional and orderly proceedings (People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257, 262). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered January 24, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since all of the petitioner’s contentions could have been reviewed on a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction, they are not subject to review by a habeas corpus proceeding (see, People ex rel. Govan v Waldron, 175 AD2d 820). The proceeding was, therefore, properly dismissed without a hearing (see, People ex rel. Morgan v Berry, 149 AD2d 752; People ex rel. McNair v Bantum, 123 AD2d 800). Furthermore, the facts of this case do not indicate that there was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights which would warrant a departure from traditional and orderly proceedings (People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257, 262). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Clark v. Riley, 204 A.D.2d 669, 614 N.Y.S.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 669 (People ex rel. Clark v. Riley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related