People ex rel. Romero v. Johnson

122 A.D.2d 240, 504 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59583
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 21, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 240 (People ex rel. Romero v. Johnson) 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. Romero v. Johnson, 122 A.D.2d 240, 504 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding based on a failure to afford the petitioner a timely parole revocation hearing with proper notice, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [241]*241Queens County (Balbach, J.), dated May 16, 1985, which sustained the writ.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to surrender himself to the Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility.

By executing a waiver of his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing after being served with the appropriate notices on the day of his return to New York from Oregon, the petitioner waived his right to challenge the timeliness of the parole violation charges filed against him (see, People ex rel. Quinones v New York State Bd. of Parole, 66 NY2d 748, affg 109 AD2d 908; People ex rel. Miller v Walters, 60 NY2d 899, 901; People ex rel. Linares v Dalsheim, 107 AD2d 728, 729; People ex rel. Hatterson v Walters, 100 AD2d 978, 979). The fact that the petitioner was not yet represented by counsel when he executed the waiver did not impair the integrity of the waiver (see, People ex rel. Martinez v Walters, 99 AD2d 476, appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 727). Inasmuch as there is nothing on record to indicate that the subject waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently, it must be given effect (see, Matter of White v New York State Div. of Parole, 60 NY2d 920), notwithstanding its subsequent purported rescission by the petitioner. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Berger v. Arteta
2024 NY Slip Op 24208 (New York County Court, Orange County, 2024)
People Ex Rel. Duchnowski v. New York State Division of Parole
123 A.D.3d 1156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People ex rel. Melendez v. Warden
214 A.D.2d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People ex rel. Cruz v. Sullivan
150 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People ex rel. Moll v. Rodriguez
132 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People ex rel. Walker v. Sullivan
128 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D.2d 240, 504 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-romero-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1986.