People ex rel. Strickland v. Miranda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Strickland v. Miranda

264 A.D.2d 789, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 789 (People ex rel. Strickland v. Miranda) 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. Strickland v. Miranda, 264 A.D.2d 789, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), entered March 6, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the respondents demonstrated that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [i]; see, Matter of White v New York State Div. of Parole, 60 NY2d 920; People ex rel. Stubbs v Irvin, 258 AD2d 942; People ex rel. Quinones v New York State Bd. of Parole, 109 AD2d 908, affd 66 NY2d 748; cf., People ex rel. Melendez v Warden, 214 AD2d 301). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), entered March 6, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the respondents demonstrated that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [i]; see, Matter of White v New York State Div. of Parole, 60 NY2d 920; People ex rel. Stubbs v Irvin, 258 AD2d 942; People ex rel. Quinones v New York State Bd. of Parole, 109 AD2d 908, affd 66 NY2d 748; cf., People ex rel. Melendez v Warden, 214 AD2d 301). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 789, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-strickland-v-miranda-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack