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: Donnell SHELTON, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit violent conduct, assault on staff and disobeying a direct order. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was identified as one in a group of inmates who became agitated and began waving their arms culminating in an assault and attempted assault on various correction officers. Orders by staff were ignored by the inmates until two shots were fired. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing, which identified petitioner as being a member of the group, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Johnson v. Sabourin, 290 A.D.2d 799, 736 N.Y.S.2d 498 [2002]; Matter of Daum v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 715, 711 N.Y.S.2d 212 [2000] ). Petitioner asserts that he was incorrectly found guilty of assault because the author of the misbehavior report testified that he did not see petitioner actually hit a correction officer. The body of the misbehavior report specifically charges petitioner with attempt to assault a correction officer, which is a violation of the rule that prohibits both assaults and attempts to assault another person (see 7 NYCRR 270.2[B][1][ii]; Matter of Price v. Goord, 308 A.D.2d 625, 626, 764 N.Y.S.2d 226 [2003] ). Even if petitioner had raised his remaining contentions at the hearing or on administrative appeal thereby preserving them for our review (see Matter of Pulliam v. Waite, 8 A.D.3d 841, 778 N.Y.S.2d 323 [2004] ), we would find them to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: September 23, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)