People ex rel. Pass v. Hoke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pass v. Hoke

171 A.D.2d 909, 566 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2746

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 909 (People ex rel. Pass v. Hoke) 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. Pass v. Hoke, 171 A.D.2d 909, 566 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered July 9, 1990 in Ulster County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Because habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle to challenge errors which could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion (see, People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 AD2d 808; People ex rel. Vasquez v Scully, 105 AD2d 722), Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s appeal from his judgment of conviction has been affirmed by the Second Department (People v Pass, 82 AD2d 812). Petitioner has given no reason why the error he now raises was not raised on direct appeal (see, People ex rel. Barnes v Smith, 70 AD2d 764) or why we should now "depart from traditional, orderly procedure” (see, People ex rel. Avery v LeFevre, 105 AD2d 1015). In any event, petitioner’s argument concerning the propriety of the predicate crime used for his felony murder conviction is meritless (cf., People v Wroblewski, 109 AD2d 39, 44, affd 67 NY2d 933, cert denied 479 US 845).

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

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered July 9, 1990 in Ulster County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Because habeas corpus is not a proper vehicle to challenge errors which could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion (see, People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 AD2d 808; People ex rel. Vasquez v Scully, 105 AD2d 722), Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s appeal from his judgment of conviction has been affirmed by the Second Department (People v Pass, 82 AD2d 812). Petitioner has given no reason why the error he now raises was not raised on direct appeal (see, People ex rel. Barnes v Smith, 70 AD2d 764) or why we should now "depart from traditional, orderly procedure” (see, People ex rel. Avery v LeFevre, 105 AD2d 1015). In any event, petitioner’s argument concerning the propriety of the predicate crime used for his felony murder conviction is meritless (cf., People v Wroblewski, 109 AD2d 39, 44, affd 67 NY2d 933, cert denied 479 US 845).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 909, 566 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pass-v-hoke-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack