People v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. New York State Board of Parole

244 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 673 (People v. New York State Board of Parole) 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 v. New York State Board of Parole, 244 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ledina, J.), entered November 18, 1996 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.

Petitioner is a prison inmate, serving a sentence of 25 years to life following his 1973 conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus after he was denied release on parole. Our review of the record herein discloses no abuse of discretion in respondent State Board of Parole’s denial of petitioner’s request for parole release. Among the factors considered by the Board were the heinous nature of the crime of which petitioner was convicted (his victim was beaten and stabbed to death), the fact that this crime was committed while petitioner was under parole supervision and his criminal history of assault and robbery. The Board also took note of petitioner’s exemplary record of achievement during incarceration. As the Board considered the relevant statutory and regulatory factors, its determination will not be disturbed (see, People ex rel. Frazier v Demsky, 238 AD2d 641). Petitioner’s contention that the Board erred in applying the standards set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (L 1977, ch 904) to his case is unpersuasive (see, People ex rel. Gilmore v New York State Parole Bd., 241 AD2d 793; Matter of Rentz v Herbert, 206 AD2d 944, 945, lv denied 84 NY2d 810). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and found to be without merit.

[674]*674Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 (Ledina, J.), entered November 18, 1996 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.

Petitioner is a prison inmate, serving a sentence of 25 years to life following his 1973 conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus after he was denied release on parole. Our review of the record herein discloses no abuse of discretion in respondent State Board of Parole’s denial of petitioner’s request for parole release. Among the factors considered by the Board were the heinous nature of the crime of which petitioner was convicted (his victim was beaten and stabbed to death), the fact that this crime was committed while petitioner was under parole supervision and his criminal history of assault and robbery. The Board also took note of petitioner’s exemplary record of achievement during incarceration. As the Board considered the relevant statutory and regulatory factors, its determination will not be disturbed (see, People ex rel. Frazier v Demsky, 238 AD2d 641). Petitioner’s contention that the Board erred in applying the standards set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (L 1977, ch 904) to his case is unpersuasive (see, People ex rel. Gilmore v New York State Parole Bd., 241 AD2d 793; Matter of Rentz v Herbert, 206 AD2d 944, 945, lv denied 84 NY2d 810). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and found to be without merit.

[674]*674Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack