People ex rel. Williams v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Williams v. Griffin

114 A.D.3d 976, 979 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 976 (People ex rel. Williams v. Griffin) 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. Griffin, 114 A.D.3d 976, 979 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered December 14, 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.

In October 1996, petitioner was sentenced upon his conviction of murder in the second degree to 25 years to life in prison. His conviction was subsequently affirmed by this Court (People v Williams, 306 AD2d 763 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]). His CPL 440.10 motion was also denied. Thereafter, petitioner brought the instant proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court denied the petition without a hearing and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, the proper procedural vehicle for raising a claim of ineffective appellate counsel is a motion for a writ of error coram nobis and, consequently, petitioner may not raise such a claim in the context of this proceeding (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 598-600 [1987]; People ex rel. Rosado v Napoli, 83 AD3d 1347, 1347-1348 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]). Moreover, given that petitioner’s remaining contentions could have been raised either on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not the appropriate remedy (see People ex rel. Cato v Tedford, 108 AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]; People ex rel. Fulton v LaValley, 100 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). In any event, habeas corpus relief is unavailable because, even if these contentions had merit, petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from prison (see People ex rel. Burr v Rock, 100 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858 [2013]; People ex rel. Lewis v Graham, 96 AD3d 1423 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s judgment.

Peters, PJ., McCarthy, Garry and Rose, 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered December 14, 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.

In October 1996, petitioner was sentenced upon his conviction of murder in the second degree to 25 years to life in prison. His conviction was subsequently affirmed by this Court (People v Williams, 306 AD2d 763 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]). His CPL 440.10 motion was also denied. Thereafter, petitioner brought the instant proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court denied the petition without a hearing and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, the proper procedural vehicle for raising a claim of ineffective appellate counsel is a motion for a writ of error coram nobis and, consequently, petitioner may not raise such a claim in the context of this proceeding (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 598-600 [1987]; People ex rel. Rosado v Napoli, 83 AD3d 1347, 1347-1348 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]). Moreover, given that petitioner’s remaining contentions could have been raised either on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not the appropriate remedy (see People ex rel. Cato v Tedford, 108 AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]; People ex rel. Fulton v LaValley, 100 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). In any event, habeas corpus relief is unavailable because, even if these contentions had merit, petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from prison (see People ex rel. Burr v Rock, 100 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858 [2013]; People ex rel. Lewis v Graham, 96 AD3d 1423 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s judgment.

Peters, PJ., McCarthy, Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 976, 979 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-williams-v-griffin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack