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.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Fred BUROUGHS, Also Known as Floyd Gastons, Appellant, v. Brion D. TRAVIS, as Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGill, J.), entered June 2, 1999 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Petitioner initially commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking recalculation of his maximum expiration date and conditional release date on his current indeterminate sentence. Supreme Court dismissed that petition finding that petitioner's delinquency date was properly set. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding contending that his parole delinquency date was improperly calculated. Supreme Court denied the application for a writ and we affirm.
Even if respondents did miscalculate petitioner's conditional release date, petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from prison. Consequently, his request for habeas corpus relief was inappropriate and his petition was properly dismissed on that basis (see, People ex rel. Wilson v. Hanslmaier, 232 A.D.2d 702, 648 N.Y.S.2d 52; People ex rel. Branch v. Barnes, 199 A.D.2d 726, 605 N.Y.S.2d 479). In any event, were we to convert this proceeding to a CPLR article 78 proceeding and consider the merits, we would find conversion inappropriate as petitioner's claims have already been ruled upon in the prior CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, People ex rel. Wilson v. Hanslmaier, supra; People ex rel. Robinson v. Fogg, 105 A.D.2d 521, 481 N.Y.S.2d 448).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: June 15, 2000
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)