Betancourt v. Stanford
| Decision Date | 30 March 2017 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of Manuel BETANCOURT, Appellant, v. Tina M. STANFORD, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent. |
148 A.D.3d 1497
49 N.Y.S.3d 315 (Mem)
In the Matter of Manuel BETANCOURT, Appellant,
v.
Tina M. STANFORD, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 30, 2017.
Manuel Batancourt, Woodbourne, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Before: EGAN JR., J.P., LYNCH, ROSE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.
EGAN JR., J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered April 29, 2016 in Sullivan 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.
Petitioner is serving an aggregate prison term of 27 ? years to life following his conviction of, among other things, murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole, and his request for parole release was denied. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. A review of the record establishes that, in rendering its discretionary determination to deny petitioner's parole release request, the Board considered the relevant statutory and regulatory factors, including petitioner's disciplinary history, program accomplishments, educational achievements and
plans upon release, his COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment instrument, the seriousness of the instant offense, the sentencing minutes and his refusal to discuss the murder (see Executive Law § 259–i [2][c][A] ; 9 NYCRR 8002.3 ). Although the Board placed particular emphasis upon the heinous nature of the murder for hire that petitioner committed by stabbing the victim 17 times while the victim's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Applewhite v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Parole, 526646
...and sufficiently set forth its reasoning in denying petitioner's application for parole release (see Matter of Betancourt v. Stanford , 148 A.D.3d 1497, 1498, 49 N.Y.S.3d 315 [2017] ), and that said determination did not evince any " ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety,’ " nor was it ar......
-
Gonzalvo v. Stanford
...8002.3 ; Matter of Mays v. Stanford, 150 A.D.3d 1521, 1522, 55 N.Y.S.3d 502 [2017] ; Matter of 56 N.Y.S.3d 897Betancourt v. Stanford, 148 A.D.3d 1497, 1497–1498, 49 N.Y.S.3d 315 [2017] ). Consistent with the provisions of 9 NYCRR 8002.3(a)(11) and (12), the Board also took into account the ......
-
Lewis v. Stanford
...give equal weight to or specifically discuss each factor it considered in making the determination" (Matter of Betancourt v. Stanford, 148 A.D.3d 1497, 1498, 49 N.Y.S.3d 315 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Gordon v. Stanford, 148 A.D.3d 1502, 1503, 50 N......
-
Jeffery v. Frontier Cellular Verizon Wireless
...A.D.3d 940, 941, 826 N.Y.S.2d 772 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). We are unpersuaded by the firm's contention 49 N.Y.S.3d 315that the record exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding by the Board and the Workers' Compensation Law Judge of the nature of the settlemen......