People ex rel. Milwood v. Kuhlmann

136 A.D.2d 784, 523 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 24
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 784 (People ex rel. Milwood v. Kuhlmann) 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. Milwood v. Kuhlmann, 136 A.D.2d 784, 523 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hanofee, J.), entered April 8, 1987 in Sullivan County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner was sentenced in July 1980 to concurrent prison terms of 20 years to life and 8 Vz to 25 years following his conviction of the crimes of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department (People v Milhood, 108 AD2d 875). Petitioner subsequently initiated this habeas corpus proceeding claiming that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during the course of his extradition from California and that his initial arrest was not supported by probable cause. Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

The facts purportedly supporting petitioner’s instant arguments were known before his appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, and could have been raised on that [785]*785appeal, or the arguments could have been advanced in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440. Accordingly, habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy (see, People ex rel. Davis v Coombe, 97 AD2d 667; People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 956, affd 60 NY2d 579). The facts alleged by petitioner do not provide a basis for departing from traditional orderly procedure (see, People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People ex rel. Lamberty v. Kuhlmann
165 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Tullis v. Kelly
154 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People ex rel. Grady v. LeFevre
152 A.D.2d 850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People ex rel. Woodard v. Berry
143 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People ex rel. Rosado v. Miles
138 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.2d 784, 523 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-milwood-v-kuhlmann-nyappdiv-1988.