People Ex Rel. Martinez v. New York State Board of Parole

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Martinez v. New York State Board of Parole

435 N.E.2d 675, 56 N.Y.2d 588, 450 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3263

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 435 N.E.2d 675 (People Ex Rel. Martinez v. New York State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People Ex Rel. Martinez v. New York State Board of Parole, 435 N.E.2d 675, 56 N.Y.2d 588, 450 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3263 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Relator’s final parole revocation hearing was adjourned three times, at least two of the continuances being at relator’s request. On the 81st day, the hearing was held in the absence of relator who was attending a criminal trial. The hearing officer noted the proximity of the 90-day limit (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]) and *590 determined to “proceed in absentia, subject to the inmate’s rights of cross-examination at some later date, if he so desires.” Relator’s parole was revoked. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted to the extent of ordering a new hearing.

Relator argues that his right to due process was violated by his hearing in absentia and that, the 90-day period having expired, the only proper remedy is vacatur of the warrant. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of bad faith here by respondent, any shortcomings in the revocation hearing raise only a question of irregularity in the statutory procedures. Under the circumstances, there is no logical basis for holding that the warrant must be vacated merely because a new hearing could not be held within the 90-day limit. A new hearing adequately protects relator’s rights.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Relator’s final parole revocation hearing was adjourned three times, at least two of the continuances being at relator’s request. On the 81st day, the hearing was held in the absence of relator who was attending a criminal trial. The hearing officer noted the proximity of the 90-day limit (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]) and *590 determined to “proceed in absentia, subject to the inmate’s rights of cross-examination at some later date, if he so desires.” Relator’s parole was revoked. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted to the extent of ordering a new hearing.

Relator argues that his right to due process was violated by his hearing in absentia and that, the 90-day period having expired, the only proper remedy is vacatur of the warrant. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of bad faith here by respondent, any shortcomings in the revocation hearing raise only a question of irregularity in the statutory procedures. Under the circumstances, there is no logical basis for holding that the warrant must be vacated merely because a new hearing could not be held within the 90-day limit. A new hearing adequately protects relator’s rights.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 N.E.2d 675, 56 N.Y.2d 588, 450 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-martinez-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack