Shackleford v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shackleford v. Goord

3 A.D.3d 622, 769 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 622 (Shackleford v. Goord) 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

Shackleford v. Goord, 3 A.D.3d 622, 769 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[623]*623Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenged a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of a weapon. The charge stems from a search of petitioner’s cell which uncovered a dagger-type weapon hidden in the inside track of his cell door. Although petitioner argues, inter alia, that he did not have exclusive access to the area where the weapon was found, a reasonable inference of possession arises from the fact that the weapon was discovered in a location within petitioner’s control (see Matter of Davis v Senkowski, 306 AD2d 778 [2003]; Matter of Jackson v Selsky, 288 AD2d 802 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 612 [2002]; Matter of Colon v Goord, 274 AD2d 732 [2000]). This inference, together with the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see id.). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the weapon was too large to fit in the cell track and the penalty was harsh, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

[623]*623Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenged a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of a weapon. The charge stems from a search of petitioner’s cell which uncovered a dagger-type weapon hidden in the inside track of his cell door. Although petitioner argues, inter alia, that he did not have exclusive access to the area where the weapon was found, a reasonable inference of possession arises from the fact that the weapon was discovered in a location within petitioner’s control (see Matter of Davis v Senkowski, 306 AD2d 778 [2003]; Matter of Jackson v Selsky, 288 AD2d 802 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 612 [2002]; Matter of Colon v Goord, 274 AD2d 732 [2000]). This inference, together with the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see id.). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the weapon was too large to fit in the cell track and the penalty was harsh, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 622, 769 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shackleford-v-goord-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack