Jarrell v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 29 November 1990 |
| Citation | 167 A.D.2d 776,563 N.Y.S.2d 330 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bobby JARRELL, Appellant, v. Ramon RODRIGUEZ, as Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Alice O. Mann, Poughkeepsie, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Andrew D. Bing, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
WEISS, J.P., and MIKOLL, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.
WEISS, Justice Presiding.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered January 18, 1990 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
While on parole petitioner was arrested and charged with armed robbery. A parole violation warrant was issued and, after a preliminary hearing, it was determined that probable cause existed to believe that petitioner had violated his parole. After several postponements of the final revocation hearing, the warrant was vacated and petitioner returned to parole supervision because of the failure to timely hold a final revocation hearing. Subsequently, petitioner was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to two concurrent 4 to 8-year terms of imprisonment. Petitioner's parole was then revoked by operation of law (Executive Law § 259-i[3][d][iii] and respondent determined that August 21, 1986, the date of petitioner's arrest on the robbery charges, was the date of delinquency. Petitioner was informed of this administrative determination on October 5, 1988 by his parole officer, but refused to sign for or accept written notification of the parole revocation. In a letter from his counsel dated July 18, 1989 petitioner sought administrative review of the parole revocation, which application was denied as untimely in a letter dated July 26, 1989 (see, 9 NYCRR former 8006.1[b]; see also, Executive Law § 259-i[4][a]. The denial letter found the delinquency date to be correct on the merits. By a petition dated October 11, 1989, petitioner sought review of the revocation determination. Respondent's motion to dismiss was granted, giving rise to this appeal. We affirm.
While respondent's regulation (9 NYCRR 8006.1[a] is silent as to any appeal time period for final declarations of delinquency, we deem respondent's letter of July 26, 1989 to be a denial on the merits. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the revocation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Smyers
-
Bonilla v. Russi
...parole, rather than the date of the conviction which arose out of that arrest. We rejected such an argument in Matter of Jarrell v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 776, 563 N.Y.S.2d 330, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84, and see no reason not to follow that precedent in this ......
-
Campbell v. Evans
...of “the date of arrest or the date of the commission of the crime, rather than the date of conviction” ( Matter of Jarrell v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 776, 777, 563 N.Y.S.2d 330 [1990],lv. denied77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84 [1991]see9 NYCRR 8004.3[b]; Matter of Cruz v. New Yo......
-
Cruz v. Nys Dept. of Corr. Serv.
...[iii]) and the date of delinquency was properly set as the September 10, 1991 date of his arrest on the new crime (see, Matter of Jarrell v Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 776, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 806). Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.40 (3) (a), the 1987 sentence was interrupted by the delinquency and th......