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: Elbert WELCH, Appellant, v. Justin TAYLOR, as Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 28, 2007 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing an excessive amount of stamps. A tier II disciplinary hearing ensued, at which petitioner was found guilty as charged based upon his plea of guilty with an explanation. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court appropriately converted the proceeding to one under CPLR article 78 and ultimately dismissed the petition. This appeal by petitioner followed.
We affirm. To the extent that petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the disciplinary rule in issue, such a claim can only be raised within the context of a prison grievance procedure (see Matter of Pulliam v. Waite, 8 A.D.3d 841, 841, 778 N.Y.S.2d 323 [2004] ). As for petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased, it is wholly unsubstantiated by the record and, in any event, there is no indication that the determination flowed from any purported bias (see Matter of Chavis v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 841 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2007] ). We have examined each of the remaining contentions advanced by petitioner in his pro se brief, including his claims that he did not voluntarily plead guilty and was denied the right to present witness testimony, and, to the extent preserved, find them to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: May 08, 2008
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)