Davis v. New York State Div. of Parole
| Decision Date | 15 October 1985 |
| Citation | 494 N.Y.S.2d 136,114 A.D.2d 412 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John P. DAVIS, Appellant, v. The NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steinberg & Kolb, Poughkeepsie (Michael Kolb, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Gerald J. Ryan and Burton Herman, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, GIBBONS and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Parole, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner release on parole, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 10, 1984, which denied the application.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well established that the division of parole's release decisions are discretionary, and if made in accordance with the statutory requirements, such determinations are not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Ristau v. Hammock, 103 A.D.2d 944, 479 N.Y.S.2d 760; Matter of Harden v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 103 A.D.2d 777, 477 N.Y.S.2d 413; Matter of Ganci v. Hammock, 99 A.D.2d 546, 548, 471 N.Y.S.2d 630; Matter of Delman v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 93 A.D.2d 888, 461 N.Y.S.2d 406; Matter of Abrams v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 A.D.2d 951, 451 N.Y.S.2d 444). The reasons set forth by the division of parole for denying parole release to petitioner (the serious nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding his conviction, the fact that petitioner was a persistent and serious past offender, the fact that at the time of the offense petitioner had been on parole from a sentence for a prior offense for only eight months, and the fact that petitioner had previously violated parole conditions) were all supported by the record and satisfied its obligation under the statute (Executive Law § 259-i[1][a]; [2][c]; Matter of Harden v. New York State Bd. of Parole, supra; Matter of Delman v. New York State Bd. of Parole, supra; Matter of Lynch v. New York State Div. of Parole, 82 A.D.2d 1012, 442 N.Y.S.2d 179; Matter of Qafa v. Hammock, 80 A.D.2d 952, 438 N.Y.S.2d 40; Matter of Shapiro v. Hammock, 67 A.D.2d 713, 412 N.Y.S.2d 419). Petitioner's claim that the division of parole failed to consider his institutional record and release plans failed to overcome the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silmon v. Travis
...review (see, Matter of Heitman v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 214 A.D.2d 673, 625 N.Y.S.2d 264; Matter of Davis v. New York State Div. of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 412, 494 N.Y.S.2d 136; Executive Law § 259-i , ). It is equally settled that when a defendant enters an Alford plea, although he doe......
-
People v. Bedell
...(Executive Law § 259-i[5]; see also, Matter of Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 633, 522 N.Y.S.2d 212; Matter of Davis v. New York State Div. of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 412, 494 N.Y.S.2d 136). Until the Legislature gives us authority to review a sentence based on the laudable efforts by a defen......
-
In the Matter of Rumph v. Alexander, 1994 NY Slip Op 2(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/22/1994)
...v. New York State Board of Parole, 91 A.D.2d 1023 [1983], motion for leave to appeal denied 58 N.Y.2d 609; Matter of Davis v. New York State Division of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 412 [1985]). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the commissioners failed to give fair consideration to all of the rel......
-
Green v. Annucci
...of Parole, 91 A.D.2d 1023 [2nd Dept., 1983], motion for leave to appeal denied 58 N.Y.2d 609 [1983]; Matter of Davis v. New York State Division of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 412 [2nd Dept., 1985]). The record fails to support the petitioner's contention that the Board neglected to consider his sent......