People ex rel. Johnson v. Allard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Johnson v. Allard

303 A.D.2d 994, 758 N.Y.S.2d 715, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2003·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Erie County (Whelan, J.), entered June 19, 2001, which denied the petition for 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 denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner did not seek immediate release in his petition but, rather, sought to be brought before the court “for the purpose of Inquiring into the cause of [his] imprisonment and restraint.” In any event, the reversal of the [995]*995judgment convicting petitioner of three misdemeanors and the dismissal of those charges does not mandate his immediate release. Where, as here, a final revocation hearing has been held, “the dismissal of criminal charges or an acquittal following trial does not preclude a parole revocation determination based upon the same underlying conduct” (Matter of Williams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 277 AD2d 617, 617 [2000]). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, 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, Erie County (Whelan, J.), entered June 19, 2001, which denied the petition for 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 denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner did not seek immediate release in his petition but, rather, sought to be brought before the court “for the purpose of Inquiring into the cause of [his] imprisonment and restraint.” In any event, the reversal of the [995]*995judgment convicting petitioner of three misdemeanors and the dismissal of those charges does not mandate his immediate release. Where, as here, a final revocation hearing has been held, “the dismissal of criminal charges or an acquittal following trial does not preclude a parole revocation determination based upon the same underlying conduct” (Matter of Williams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 277 AD2d 617, 617 [2000]). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

People ex rel. Johnson v. Allard, 303 A.D.2d 994, 758 N.Y.S.2d 715, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 994 (People ex rel. Johnson v. Allard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related