Hines v. State Bd. of Parole

Decision Date19 July 1944
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesHINES v. STATE BOARD OF PAROLE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Proceeding under article 78, s 1283 et seq., of the Civil Practice Act, in the matter of the application for an order of certiorari in favor of James J. Hines against the State Board of Parole in denying petitioner's release from state prison on parole. From an order, 267 App.Div. 881, 46 N.Y.S.2d 572, unanimously affirming an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, 181 Misc. 280, 46 N.Y.S.2d 569, Aldrich, J., granting respondent's motion for an order to dismiss, as insufficient, the petition, petitioner, by permission of Court of Appeals, appeals.

Affirmed.

See also 181 Misc. 277, 48 N.Y.S.2d 164.

Jacob Shientag, of New York City, for appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen., (William F. McNulty, Orrin G. Judd and Harry F. Karst, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

CONWAY, Judge.

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order of certiorari to review the action of the State Board of Parole in denying parole to petitioner and for the issuance of an order commanding the Board of Parole to certify the petitioner for parole.

The theory upon which the petitioner has appealed to the courts is that the Board has made it a condition precedent to any consideration of his case, that he admit his guilt of the crimes charged against him regardless of whether in fact he was or was not guilty of the crime or crimes of which he stands convicted and thus violated the rule laid down in Sims v. Sims, 75 N.Y. 466;People v. Rodawald, 177 N.Y. 408, 425,70 N.E. 1, 6;Schindler v. Royal Insurance Co., 258 N.Y. 310, 312, 313, 179 N.E. 711, 712, 80 A.L.R. 1142. In the Schindler case we pointed out: ‘In any civil proceeding to which the people are not parties, one may, after having been convicted of a crime, assert his innocence and put his opponent to his proof of guilt, or after having been acquitted on a criminal charge, may himself be subjected to a trial anew of the issue of fact.’ We do not find however, on this record that such improper condition was imposed upon petitioner.

A comprehensive system of parole has been established by the State and is found in the Correction Law, Consol.Laws, c. 43. In section 210 thereof the Board of Parole is charged with the duty of determining ‘what prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence in state prisons and the Elmira Reformatory, may be released on parole and when and under what conditions.’ Under the same section the members of the Board are required personally to study the prisoners confined in the prisons of the State under indeterminate sentences, so as to determine their ultimate fitness to be paroled. Under section 212 it is provided that the time of the release of a prisoner ‘shall be discretionary with the board of parole, but no such person shall be released until he has served such minimum sentence nor until he shall have served one year. The action of the board of parole in releasing prisoners shall be deemed a judicial function and shall not be reviewable if done according to law.’ The statutes declare that the action of the Board in releasing or refusing to release prisoners shall not be reviewable if in accordance with law. Thus so long as the Board violates no positive statutory requirement, its discretion is absolute and beyond review in the courts. In this case there was no departure from any statutory requirement and we may not review its action or failure to act. Aside from our lack of power or authority to review the action of the Board in any particular case, the statutory scheme is such that no judicial review of the merits in any case is possible. The action of the Board depends upon information in regard to the personal traits and characteristics of the individual convicted and upon unanimous concurrence of the individual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Menechino v. Oswald
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 5, 1970
    ...court to be absolute and beyond court review as long as the Board violates no positive statutory requirement. Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N.Y. 254, 56 N.E.2d 572 (1944); Briguglio v. New York State Board of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21, 298 N.Y. S.2d 704, 246 N.E.2d 512 (1969). Once release......
  • Cicero v. Olgiati
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 17, 1976
    ...three separate occasions that the Parole Board's "discretion is absolute and beyond review in the courts." Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N.Y. 254, 257, 56 N.E.2d 572, 573 (1944); see Matter of Briguglio v. New York State Board of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21, 29, 298 N.Y.S.2d 704, 710, 246 N.......
  • People ex rel. Dowdy v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 15, 1978
    ...no positive statutory requirement, its discretion is absolute and beyond review in the courts." (Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N.Y. 254, 257, 56 N.E.2d 572, 573; Matter of Tomarkin v. Bombard, 56 A.D.2d 881, 392 N.Y.S.2d 478; Solari v. Vincent, 46 A.D.2d 453, 363 N.Y.S.2d 33......
  • Tinsley v. New York State Bd. of Parole
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1973
    ...the right to release upon parole has always been clear-cut. It is a discretionary act not subject to review. Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N.Y. 254, 56 N.E.2d 572; Matter of O'Connor v. State Board of Parole, 270 App.Div. 93, 58 N.Y.S.2d 726; Matter of Briguglio v. New York ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT