People ex rel. Harris v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Harris v. New York State Division of Parole

306 A.D.2d 938, 761 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6762

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Gilbert, J.), entered September 7, 2001, 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 peti[939] tion seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Because “ ‘[p]aróle decisions are discretionary and prisoners have no right to be released prior to the expiration of their sentences,’ ” petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief (People ex rel. Daniels v Beaver, 303 AD2d 1025, 1025 [2003], quoting People ex rel. Sansalone v Schriver, 252 AD2d 605, 605 [1998]). Although this Court has the power to convert a petition for a writ of habeas corpus into a CPLR article 78 petition, we decline to do so based on the failure of petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies (see People ex rel. Christy v Goord, 291 AD2d 835 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 601 [2002]). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by petitioner in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they lack merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Gilbert, J.), entered September 7, 2001, 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 peti[939] tion seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Because “ ‘[p]aróle decisions are discretionary and prisoners have no right to be released prior to the expiration of their sentences,’ ” petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief (People ex rel. Daniels v Beaver, 303 AD2d 1025, 1025 [2003], quoting People ex rel. Sansalone v Schriver, 252 AD2d 605, 605 [1998]). Although this Court has the power to convert a petition for a writ of habeas corpus into a CPLR article 78 petition, we decline to do so based on the failure of petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies (see People ex rel. Christy v Goord, 291 AD2d 835 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 601 [2002]). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by petitioner in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they lack merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

People ex rel. Harris v. New York State Division of Parole, 306 A.D.2d 938, 761 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

306 A.D.2d 938 (People ex rel. Harris v. New York State Division of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related