Gonzalez v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 27 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 121,121
• Citation: 93 N.Y.S.3d 236,32 N.Y.3d 461,117 N.E.3d 795
• Parties: In the Matter of Miguel GONZALEZ, Respondent–Appellant, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Appellant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

32 N.Y.3d 461
117 N.E.3d 795
93 N.Y.S.3d 236

In the Matter of Miguel GONZALEZ, Respondent–Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Appellant–Respondent.

No. 121

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided November 27, 2018

OPINION OF THE COURT

Chief Judge DiFIORE.

32 N.Y.3d 465

93 N.Y.S.3d 238

117 N.E.3d 797

The primary issue presented on appeal is whether the Appellate Division erred in holding that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), which must "assist"

32 N.Y.3d 466

inmates on or eligible for community supervision to secure housing pursuant to Correction Law § 201(5), has an obligation to provide sex offenders residing in a residential treatment facility (RTF) with substantial assistance in identifying appropriate housing. We hold that the Court erred in imposing a heightened duty of substantial assistance on DOCCS, and conclude that the agency met its statutory obligation to assist petitioner in this particular case.

I.

Petitioner was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of rape in the second degree under Penal Law § 130.30(1). He was sentenced to a determinate sentence consisting of 2 ½ years' imprisonment followed by 3 years' postrelease supervision (PRS). The maximum expiration date of his prison sentence was September 30, 2014. In early May 2014, petitioner was advised by the Time Allowance Committee (TAC) at Franklin Correctional Facility that his accumulated good time credit amounted to four months and ten days and that he was eligible for conditional release to PRS on May 20, 2014. Had petitioner been released on his conditional release date, the maximum expiration date of his PRS would have been three years from that date, or May 20, 2017.

Based on the sex offense for which petitioner was convicted and the fact that the victim of the offense was 14 years old at the time of the offense, petitioner's supervisory release was subject to the mandatory condition set forth in the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) prohibiting him from residing within 1,000 feet of school grounds (see Executive Law § 259–c [14 ]; Penal Law § 220.00[14] ; Penal Law § 65.10[4–a][a] ). In accordance with this statutory requirement, one month prior to petitioner's conditional release date, the Board of Parole imposed a special condition on his release. That condition required petitioner to propose an appropriate SARA-compliant residence to be investigated and approved by DOCCS. Petitioner identified one potential residence prior to his May 2014 conditional release date but that residence did not qualify as SARA-compliant housing. Since he was unable to satisfy the mandatory condition of his supervisory release, DOCCS held him in custody beyond his May 20, 2014 conditional release date. Petitioner continued to identify potential residences and discuss them with his parole officer, but none of the proposed residences he identified satisfied the mandatory special condition. As a result,

32 N.Y.3d 467

petitioner lost all of his good time credit, and DOCCS kept petitioner incarcerated until September 30, 2014, the maximum expiration date for the imprisonment portion of his determinate sentence. Accordingly, the expiration date of his three-year term of PRS, the remaining portion of his determinate sentence, was extended to September 30, 2017. Prior to his release, petitioner was adjudicated a level one sex offender.

Because petitioner was unable to identify a suitable residence by his maximum expiration date, the Board of Parole imposed, as a condition of his PRS, that

93 N.Y.S.3d 239

117 N.E.3d 798

petitioner be transferred to Woodbourne Correctional Facility – a residential treatment facility (RTF) (see Penal Law § 70.45[3] ; Correction Law § 2[6] ). Specifically, under Penal Law § 70.45(3), the Board of Parole is authorized to require, as a condition of PRS, that an inmate be transferred to and participate in the programs of an RTF for a period of no more than six months upon his or her release from the underlying term of imprisonment. Woodbourne is a medium security correctional facility that DOCCS has designated for use as an RTF (see 7 NYCRR § 100.50 [c][2] ). Petitioner remained at Woodbourne until February 4, 2015, when he was released on supervision to a SARA-compliant shelter in Manhattan.

In December 2014, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding asserting that DOCCS failed to provide him with assistance in locating housing. He also challenged the agency's determination to designate Woodbourne as an RTF, asserting, among other things, that the facility did not comply with the statutory requirements of an RTF under Correction Law §§ 2 and 73 and that he was therefore being held in an illegal RTF.¹ In addition, petitioner asserted that the determination to deprive him of all of his good time credit was made in violation of lawful procedure and due process.²

In disputing that Woodbourne was a legal RTF, petitioner argued that he was effectively being incarcerated in a facility

32 N.Y.3d 468

that was not community-based as it was well outside of the Manhattan community to which he planned to return. He also claimed he was confined under the same restrictions as inmates who were serving their prison sentences at that same medium security facility. Petitioner further maintained that he did not receive any rehabilitative programming directed toward his reintegration into the community while at Woodbourne as required by Correction Law § 73. Although he admittedly participated in Woodbourne's RTF Program for a portion of his stay at that facility, he claimed that the program was no different from the "Phase Three" program he had already completed as part of his sentence of imprisonment – a program that was required to be completed by all inmates prior to their release from incarceration. Petitioner's participation in the RTF Program apparently terminated when he began his assignment to an outside work crew.

In support of his claim that DOCCS did not provide him with assistance in locating SARA-compliant housing, petitioner alleged that he was assigned to a Poughkeepsie-area parole officer and not one from New York City. Petitioner was permitted to leave the Woodbourne facility to make weekly visits to the parole officer but objected to the fact that he was under the supervision of correction officers at all times. He asserted that, at those visits, the parole officer would merely ask him whether he had located any suitable housing. Petitioner acknowledged that the parole officer affirmatively proposed a single housing option for him – a therapeutic community in Staten Island at a monthly cost of $620, which petitioner rejected as

93 N.Y.S.3d 240

117 N.E.3d 799

he could not afford it. He essentially contended that DOCCS' assistance was insufficient in light of the circumstances of his continued incarceration at the RTF, including his limited access to the telephone and lack of access to the internet.

In opposition, DOCCS maintained that petitioner was retained beyond his conditional release date because he was unable to satisfy the special condition imposed by the Board of Parole – the SARA residency requirement – and, based on his continued inability to find a suitable residence, he was properly transferred to Woodbourne as a condition of his PRS on his maximum expiration date. DOCCS provided an affidavit from a Senior Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator (SORC) who averred that, in general, RTF inmates "meet and collaborate with DOCCS staff with greater frequency than non-sex-offender inmates, with an emphasis on identifying lawful and

32 N.Y.3d 469

otherwise appropriate residences." Moreover, the SORC referenced the DOCCS directive requiring that all parolees subject to SARA residency restrictions meet with offender rehabilitation coordinators and that these coordinators "submit any new residence proposals for investigation by Community Supervision field personnel on a priority basis." The SORC also asserted that petitioner, as an RTF resident, earned higher wages than the Woodbourne inmates and that the bulk of those earnings were placed into a housing fund for petitioner that was exempt from garnishment by DOCCS.

As to rendering assistance to petitioner, DOCCS also submitted entries from its case management system detailing many of the proposed residences identified by petitioner for investigation by DOCCS and why these residences were rejected for lack of SARA compliance. Notably, an entry dated November 28, 2014 states that petitioner had proposed 58 potential residences since March 2014. DOCCS identified nine dates on which petitioner had met with ORCs regarding SARA-compliant housing and fourteen dates on which its personnel had recorded efforts to...