People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham

106 A.D.3d 1303, 965 N.Y.S.2d 237
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 16, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 106 A.D.3d 1303 (People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham) 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. Williams v. Cunningham, 106 A.D.3d 1303, 965 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered May 15, 2012 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

[1304]*1304Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree (People v Williams, 88 AD2d 983 [1982], lv denied 57 NY2d 690 [1982]), commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the People failed to secure a lawful indictment. Supreme Court denied the application without a hearing. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm. Significantly, “habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claims that could have been . . . raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion” (People ex rel. Collins v Billnier, 87 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 802 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People ex rel. Cicio v Rock, 85 AD3d 1468, 1469 [2011]), a situation that prevails even when the claims are ostensibly jurisdictional (see People ex rel. Burr v Rock, 93 AD3d 977, 977 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1007 [2012]). Since petitioner has failed to present a sound reason for a departure from orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Hemphill v Rock, 95 AD3d 1579, 1579 [2012]), we perceive no basis to disturb the denial of his application.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

People ex rel. West v. Coveny
2020 NY Slip Op 1884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick
2017 NY Slip Op 8781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People ex rel. Chaney v. Dagostino
140 A.D.3d 1481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People ex rel. Lashway v. Thomas
110 A.D.3d 1407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People ex rel. Reed v. Tedford
110 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 A.D.3d 1303, 965 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-williams-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-2013.