People Ex Rel. Anthony Speights v. Mckoy

Decision Date06 October 2011
Citation88 A.D.3d 1039,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06962,930 N.Y.S.2d 498
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Anthony SPEIGHTS, Appellant,v.Jeff McKOY, as Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 1039
930 N.Y.S.2d 498
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06962

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Anthony SPEIGHTS, Appellant,
v.
Jeff McKOY, as Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 6, 2011.


Anthony Speights, Newark, New Jersey, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, LAHTINEN, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.LAHTINEN, J.

[88 A.D.3d 1039] Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered October 18, 2010 in Greene County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A–II felony, and was sentenced to a prison term of three years to life in 1991 ( see Penal Law § 220.18). He was released to parole supervision, which has since been revoked on multiple occasions. Most recently, he committed an armed robbery in Pennsylvania, prompting the Division of Parole to lodge a detainer warrant. [88 A.D.3d 1040] Petitioner was returned to New York in 2010, after which his parole was revoked and a time assessment of 10 months imposed. He then commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, arguing that his sentence terminated given a period from 1994 to 2000 when he enjoyed uninterrupted parole release. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.

Preliminarily, petitioner has again been released to parole supervision, but this proceeding is not moot given that the maximum expiration date of his sentence remains affected by the issues presented ( see People ex rel. Forshey v. John, 75 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 904 N.Y.S.2d 620 [2010]; People ex rel. Catts v. Haggett, 67 A.D.3d 1315, 1316, 888 N.Y.S.2d 804 [2009] ). We will accordingly consider this matter as a CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see CPLR 103[c]; People ex rel. Catts v. Haggett, 67 A.D.3d at 1316, 888 N.Y.S.2d 804), and now affirm.

Executive Law former § 259–j (3–a) directed the Division to “grant termination of sentence after three years of unrevoked presumptive release or parole to a person serving an indeterminate sentence for a class A felony offense defined in” Penal Law article 220.1 As petitioner's lengthy period of parole release was revoked prior to the statute's 2005 enactment, however, the statute's provisions are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Yelich
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 15 Marzo 2018
    ...the calculation of petitioner's maximum expiration date and period of his postrelease supervision (see People ex rel. Speights v. McKoy, 88 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 930 N.Y.S.2d 498 [2011] ; People ex rel. Turner v. Sears, 63 A.D.3d at 1405, 882 N.Y.S.2d 330 ), we decline to dismiss this appeal a......
  • People ex rel. Baron v. N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Septiembre 2012
    ...subsequently made clear that a petitioner on parole supervision may not maintain a habeas corpus claim ( see People ex rel. Speights v. McKoy, 88 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 930 N.Y.S.2d 498;People ex rel. Howard v. Yelich, 87 A.D.3d 772, 773, 928 N.Y.S.2d 609). Petitioner's reliance on Speights and......
  • People ex rel. Baez v. Superintendent, Queensboro Corr. Facility
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 4 Marzo 2015
    ...to a person serving an indeterminate sentence for a class A felony offense defined in" Penal Law § 220 ( People ex rel. Speights v. McKoy, 88 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 930 N.Y.S.2d 498 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Executive Law former § 259–j(3–a) was enacted as part of the 2004 DLRA (L. ......
  • In the Matter of Joseph Mcgowan v. Fischer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Octubre 2011
    ...the hearing, supports the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Sorrentino v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 909 N.Y.S.2d 925 [2010]; [88 A.D.3d 1039] Matter of Terrence v. Fischer, 64 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 884 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2009] ). Any discrepancies in the time of the incident noted in the ......
  • 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