IN RE: Frank GUZMAN (2006)

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

IN RE: Frank GUZMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert DENNISON, Chairman, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent-Respondent.

Decided: September 28, 2006

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, McGUIRE, JJ.

Frank Guzman, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York (Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered December 30, 2005, which denied petitioner's application to annul respondent's denial of parole and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While petitioner's prison record is commendable, respondent's denial of parole based on the serious and violent nature of his offense is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476-477, 718 N.Y.S.2d 704, 741 N.E.2d 501 [2000]; People ex rel. Herbert v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128, 133, 468 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1983] ). Respondent did find “some aggravating circumstances beyond the inherent seriousness of the crime itself” (Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 433, 598 N.Y.S.2d 245 [1993], affd. 83 N.Y.2d 788, 610 N.Y.S.2d 954, 632 N.E.2d 1277 [1994] ), e.g., that petitioner was on parole when he committed the crime.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network