People ex rel. Hayes v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Hayes v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

78 A.D.3d 1591, 910 N.Y.S.2d 728

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 1591 (People ex rel. Hayes v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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. Hayes v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 78 A.D.3d 1591, 910 N.Y.S.2d 728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 7, 2009 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends that, [1592]*1592because he was incarcerated when he committed the assault underlying the parole violation charges, he was not on parole and therefore could not violate his parole. We reject that contention (see People ex rel. Wilson v Jackson, 2 AD2d 638 [1956]). As a parolee, petitioner remained in the legal custody of the Division of Parole “until expiration of the maximum term or period of sentencé, or expiration of the period of supervision, including any period of [postrelease] supervision, or return to the custody of [respondent]” (Executive Law § 259-i [2] [b]). Thus, petitioner was on parole despite the fact that he was incarcerated when he committed the assault in question. Present — Martoche, J.P, Sconiers, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 7, 2009 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends that, [1592]*1592because he was incarcerated when he committed the assault underlying the parole violation charges, he was not on parole and therefore could not violate his parole. We reject that contention (see People ex rel. Wilson v Jackson, 2 AD2d 638 [1956]). As a parolee, petitioner remained in the legal custody of the Division of Parole “until expiration of the maximum term or period of sentencé, or expiration of the period of supervision, including any period of [postrelease] supervision, or return to the custody of [respondent]” (Executive Law § 259-i [2] [b]). Thus, petitioner was on parole despite the fact that he was incarcerated when he committed the assault in question. Present — Martoche, J.P, Sconiers, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 1591, 910 N.Y.S.2d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-hayes-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack