Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: MICHAEL GONZALEZ, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, GOWANDA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS. MICHAEL GONZALEZ, PETITIONER–APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court (Feroleto, J.) converted the proceeding to one pursuant to CPLR article 78. The case was then assigned to a different Supreme Court Justice (Wolfgang, J.), who ultimately dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm.
Respondents concede that the record does not conclusively establish that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and thus we reach the merits of this appeal (cf. generally Matter of Karlin v Cully, 104 AD3d 1285, 1286). Here, petitioner pleaded guilty to violating two conditions of his parole. Petitioner now challenges the parole revocation determination on the ground that one of the conditions of parole at issue, i.e., the condition precluding fraternization with any person petitioner knows to have a criminal record (fraternization condition) (see 9 NYCRR 8003.2[g] ), is unconstitutionally vague. That challenge survives petitioner's guilty plea (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 231 n 2; People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 491, 494), but is not properly before us inasmuch as the record does not establish that it was raised before the motion court (see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 985; cf. Palermo v. Taccone, 79 AD3d 1616, 1618). Petitioner's further contention that the fraternization condition was arbitrarily applied to him is foreclosed by his guilty plea (see Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d at 231 n 3; People v. Rodriguez, 55 N.Y.2d 776, 777). Additionally, with respect to both of the conditions of parole at issue, we note that petitioner's “plea of guilty ․ precludes [a] challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of guilt” and, “[i]n any event, the guilty plea constitutes substantial evidence of his guilt” (Matter of Holdip v. Travis, 9 AD3d 825, 826). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 12–01504
Decided: June 14, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)