Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole
| Decision Date | 10 February 1983 |
| Parties | , 447 N.E.2d 1279 In the Matter of Hector VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert Selcov, Joan S. Posner and David C. Leven, New York City, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. , for respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division, 89 A.D.2d 734, 453 N.Y.S.2d 864, should be reversed and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for determination of whether the petitioner was subject to the convenience and practical control of the New York parole authorities while he was in the custody of the State of Connecticut.
In 1976 petitioner was sentenced by the New York courts to a term of one year to life for criminal sale of a controlled substance. He was released on parole on September 27, 1977. In 1979 he was arrested in Connecticut, convicted of robbery first degree and sentenced to a term of three and one-half to seven years in prison. On July 30, 1979 New York issued a parole violation warrant and forwarded it to the Connecticut authorities. On October 15, 1979 the board declared petitioner delinquent as of December 11, 1978 and it requested that the Connecticut authorities return petitioner to New York when he was available. No revocation hearings were held for petitioner until after he was paroled by Connecticut on March 12, 1982 and while the appeal from this proceeding was pending.
By this article 78 proceeding commenced September 30, 1981, petitioner contended that he was being denied his right to a timely parole revocation hearing. He alleged that respondent failed to comply with section 259-i of the Executive Law inasmuch as no preliminary hearing had been held within 15 days of the execution of the parole revocation warrant and because respondent refused to afford him a final hearing until his return to New York after serving his sentence in Connecticut and thus the revocation of his parole must be vacated.
Special Term dismissed the petition based upon respondent's defense that petitioner had not been accepted for parole supervision by the State of Connecticut and that he therefore did not come within the terms of the Interstate Compact (Executive Law, § 259-m). Accordingly, it held that petitioner was not subject to the convenience and practical control of the New York parole authorities. The Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Robertson v. New York State Div. of Parole
...921, 447 N.E.2d 1282, rearg. denied 58 N.Y.2d 1114, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 449 N.E.2d 746; Matter of Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 981, 982, 460 N.Y.S.2d 918, 447 N.E.2d 1279, rearg. denied 58 N.Y.2d 1114, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 449 N.E.2d 746; People ex rel. Marvin v. McDonnel......
-
People ex rel. Cope v. Pauley
...is in direct contradiction with the Court of Appeals case addressed to that specific contention (Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 981, 460 N.Y.S.2d 918, 447 N.E.2d 1279), in which the court stated that the fact the parolee is not being supervised by the other jurisdiction ......
-
People ex rel. Valentine v. Smith
...to do so because the parolee was not subject to their convenience and practical control (Matter of Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 981, 983, 460 N.Y.S.2d 918, 447 N.E.2d 1279). While this burden is a "modest" one, "speculative arguments that could be advanced in every ins......
-
Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole
...417 N.E.2d 493 on that basis (Matter of Vasquez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 89 A.D.2d 734, 453 N.Y.S.2d 864, revd 58 N.Y.2d 981, 460 N.Y.S.2d 918, 447 N.E.2d 1279). The Court of Appeals, however, determined that its holding in Gonzales was applicable to this case, notwithstanding that ......