Strickland v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strickland v. New York State Division of Parole

275 A.D.2d 830, 713 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 830 (Strickland v. New York State Division 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

Strickland v. New York State Division of Parole, 275 A.D.2d 830, 713 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered March 22, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

[831]*831Petitioner, having been convicted of murder in the second degree for using an illegal handgun to kill an unarmed stranger in the elevator in petitioner’s apartment building, is serving an indeterminate term of seven years to life. Petitioner, who stated he was intoxicated at the time, shot the victim because he “moved” on him. Petitioner was denied parole release in 1997 and again appeared before the Board of Parole for an interview on March 16, 1999. This application was also denied and the Board’s decision affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding which Supreme Court dismissed, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The Parole Board’s action is deemed to be a judicial function and is unreviewable if done in accordance with law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; see also, Matter of Anthony v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 704, lv denied 92 NY2d 812, cert denied 525 US 1183). Our review of the record, contrary to petitioner’s argument, convinces us that the Board considered all relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, and thus the determination was done in accordance with law. Notably, the Board is not required to expressly discuss each of the statutory factors in its determination (see, Matter of Faison v Travis, 260 AD2d 866, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1013). Moreover, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety, and thus we find no reason to disturb the Board’s discretionary decision that parole release would not be appropriate at this time (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Spain, Graffeo and Lahtinen, 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

—Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered March 22, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

[831]*831Petitioner, having been convicted of murder in the second degree for using an illegal handgun to kill an unarmed stranger in the elevator in petitioner’s apartment building, is serving an indeterminate term of seven years to life. Petitioner, who stated he was intoxicated at the time, shot the victim because he “moved” on him. Petitioner was denied parole release in 1997 and again appeared before the Board of Parole for an interview on March 16, 1999. This application was also denied and the Board’s decision affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding which Supreme Court dismissed, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The Parole Board’s action is deemed to be a judicial function and is unreviewable if done in accordance with law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; see also, Matter of Anthony v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 704, lv denied 92 NY2d 812, cert denied 525 US 1183). Our review of the record, contrary to petitioner’s argument, convinces us that the Board considered all relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, and thus the determination was done in accordance with law. Notably, the Board is not required to expressly discuss each of the statutory factors in its determination (see, Matter of Faison v Travis, 260 AD2d 866, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1013). Moreover, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety, and thus we find no reason to disturb the Board’s discretionary decision that parole release would not be appropriate at this time (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Spain, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 830, 713 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack