People ex rel. Van Luven v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Van Luven v. Henderson

57 A.D.2d 729, 395 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11786

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1977·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was sentenced in Supreme Court, Cayuga County, on April 26, 1965 on his plea of guilty to grand larceny, first degree, [730] to an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 15 years. On January 20, 1976, he was given a parole release hearing. His parole was denied, and he was furnished with the following written statement of the reasons for denial of parole: "1. You are a parole violator; 2. You have been granted probation in the past; 3. This is your eighth (8th) conviction; 4. You do not learn from experience; 5. You have unrealistic plans for the future.” Special Term dismissed relator’s petition to require a further statement from the Board of Parole. It found the reasons given were meaningful and sufficient and we agree that they were (see Matter of Ebbs v Regan, 54 AD2d 611; People ex rel. Ganci v Henderson, 54 AD2d 609; Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 42). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present —Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was sentenced in Supreme Court, Cayuga County, on April 26, 1965 on his plea of guilty to grand larceny, first degree, [730] to an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 15 years. On January 20, 1976, he was given a parole release hearing. His parole was denied, and he was furnished with the following written statement of the reasons for denial of parole: "1. You are a parole violator; 2. You have been granted probation in the past; 3. This is your eighth (8th) conviction; 4. You do not learn from experience; 5. You have unrealistic plans for the future.” Special Term dismissed relator’s petition to require a further statement from the Board of Parole. It found the reasons given were meaningful and sufficient and we agree that they were (see Matter of Ebbs v Regan, 54 AD2d 611; People ex rel. Ganci v Henderson, 54 AD2d 609; Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 42). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present —Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

People ex rel. Van Luven v. Henderson, 57 A.D.2d 729, 395 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

57 A.D.2d 729 (People ex rel. Van Luven v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related