People ex rel. Jackson v. Morrissey

43 A.D.3d 1301, 842 N.Y.S.2d 816
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 28, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1301 (People ex rel. Jackson v. Morrissey) 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. Jackson v. Morrissey, 43 A.D.3d 1301, 842 N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), entered September 5, 2006 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking habeas corpus relief on the ground that he did not receive a written final declaration of delinquency in accordance with Executive Law § 259-i (3) (d) (iii) and 9 NYCRR 8004.3 (g) upon being charged with and convicted of a felony while on parole. We reject the contention of petitioner that he had a due process right to receive the final written declaration of delinquency when his parole was revoked and he was reincarcerated upon being charged with and convicted of the new crime {see Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 490 [1972]; see also People ex rel. Harris v Sullivan, 74 NY2d 305, 310 [1989]). “Inherent in a [1302]*1302new felony conviction is the fact that a parole violation was sustained” (Matter of O’Quinn v New York State Bd. of Parole, 132 Misc 2d 92, 95 [1986]). Upon his conviction of a new crime, petitioner’s parole was automatically revoked by operation of law (see Matter of Thompson v New York State Div. of Parole, 171 AD2d 909 [1991]), and respondent had “a continuing, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty” to recalculate the maximum expiration date of petitioner’s sentence (People ex rel. Melendez v Bennett, 291 AD2d 590, 591 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 602 [2002]; see Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 288 AD2d 572, 573 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 725 [2002]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Related

Colon v. Fischer
74 A.D.3d 1670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Meade v. Boucaud
67 A.D.3d 1263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 1301, 842 N.Y.S.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-jackson-v-morrissey-nyappdiv-2007.