People ex rel. Gillispie v. Warden, House of Detention for Men

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore MILONAS
Citation594 N.Y.S.2d 184,191 A.D.2d 161
Decision Date02 March 1993
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Christopher GILLISPIE, Relator-Appellant, v. WARDEN, HOUSE OF DETENTION FOR MEN, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Page 184

594 N.Y.S.2d 184
191 A.D.2d 161
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Christopher
GILLISPIE, Relator-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, HOUSE OF DETENTION FOR MEN, New York State Division
of Parole, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department.
March 2, 1993.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, ASCH and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1991, dismissing petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner was released to parole supervision on April 26, 1989 after having served concurrent sentences of 5 to 10 years and 4 and one-half to 9 years for the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree. Thereafter, on the morning of October 3, 1990, a .22 caliber handgun was recovered by the police from a clothes hamper in petitioner's bedroom on the second floor of a house at 669 St. Johns Place [191 A.D.2d 162] in Brooklyn where his grandmother and girlfriend also apparently resided. Other firearms and live ammunition were seized from various locations in the house, as well as a quantity of marijuana, cocaine and scales. However, the ensuing parole revocation charge that was sustained was based upon the gun found in petitioner's bedroom; the remaining charges concerning the weapons and ammunition discovered elsewhere in the residence were dismissed.

In challenging his parole revocation, petitioner contends that there was no proof that the weapon removed from his bedroom was operable notwithstanding that the charge relating thereto specified its operability.

Page 185

In that regard, it should be noted that petitioner's counsel did not raise this issue at the revocation hearing and never objected to the failure of respondent New York State Division of Parole to introduce a ballistics report. Since the operability of the .22 caliber handgun was never advanced at the hearing, it is not preserved for review. Moreover, while a parolee is certainly entitled to due process rights at a revocation hearing (People ex rel. McGee v. Walters, 62 N.Y.2d 317, 476 N.Y.S.2d 803, 465 N.E.2d 342; People ex rel. Matthews v. New York State Division of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 196, 460 N.Y.S.2d 746, 447 N.E.2d 689), it is "recognized that a parole revocation hearing is different from a criminal trial conducted to determine guilt or innocence, and is, instead, an administrative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Valentine Transit, Inc. v. Kernizan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 Marzo 1993
    ...Supreme Court furnished no notice that it would give the case summary judgment treatment (see, Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d [191 A.D.2d 161] 310, 318, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1). Rather, the court, before issue had been joined, simply granted summary judgment to Valentine on plaintiff's m......
  • People ex rel. Derby v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Julio 1994
    ...of his parole by his constructive possession of a revolver (see, Executive Law § 259-i[3][f][viii]; People ex rel. Gillispie v. Warden, 191 A.D.2d 161, 162, 594 N.Y.S.2d 184; People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 A.D.2d 369, 372, 435 N.Y.S.2d 410) and by his possession of a knife (see, Penal......
  • People ex rel. Branch v. Barnes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Diciembre 1993
    ...an inoperable weapon may indeed constitute a violation of parole (see, People ex rel. Gillispie v. Warden of House of Detention for Men, 191 A.D.2d 161, 162, 594 N.Y.S.2d 184; People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 A.D.2d 369, 372-373, 435 N.Y.S.2d 410). As there is ample evidence to support ......
3 cases
  • Valentine Transit, Inc. v. Kernizan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 Marzo 1993
    ...Supreme Court furnished no notice that it would give the case summary judgment treatment (see, Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d [191 A.D.2d 161] 310, 318, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1). Rather, the court, before issue had been joined, simply granted summary judgment to Valentine on plaintiff's m......
  • People ex rel. Derby v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Julio 1994
    ...of his parole by his constructive possession of a revolver (see, Executive Law § 259-i[3][f][viii]; People ex rel. Gillispie v. Warden, 191 A.D.2d 161, 162, 594 N.Y.S.2d 184; People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 A.D.2d 369, 372, 435 N.Y.S.2d 410) and by his possession of a knife (see, Penal......
  • People ex rel. Branch v. Barnes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Diciembre 1993
    ...an inoperable weapon may indeed constitute a violation of parole (see, People ex rel. Gillispie v. Warden of House of Detention for Men, 191 A.D.2d 161, 162, 594 N.Y.S.2d 184; People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 A.D.2d 369, 372-373, 435 N.Y.S.2d 410). As there is ample evidence to support ......

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