PEOPLE EX REL THOMAS v. SUPERINTENDENT OF ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Richard Rich Jr., J.), entered January 9, 2024 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is serving a prison term of 25 years to life as a result of his 2010 conviction of murder in the second degree – a conviction stemming from conduct that occurred in 1975.  Following an unsuccessful direct appeal (People v. Thomas, 96 A.D.3d 1670, 949 N.Y.S.2d 545 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1002, 951 N.Y.S.2d 478, 975 N.E.2d 924 [2012]), an apparently unsuccessful CPL article 440 motion and other collateral proceedings (People v. Thomas, 167 A.D.3d 1589, 88 N.Y.S.3d 387 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 954, 100 N.Y.S.3d 167, 123 N.E.3d 826 [2019];  People v. Thomas, 140 A.D.3d 1715, 32 N.Y.S.3d 524 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 365, 63 N.E.3d 85 [2016]), petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding contending that he was entitled to immediate release as the result of errors committed during his criminal trial, including the trial court's failure to suppress certain DNA evidence.  Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's application without a hearing, prompting this appeal.

We affirm.  “Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” (People ex rel. Hook v. Tedford, 213 A.D.3d 1065, 1066, 181 N.Y.S.3d 904 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see People ex rel. Dixon v. Superintendent of E. Corr. Facility, 181 A.D.3d 1107, 1107–1108, 118 N.Y.S.3d 450 [3d Dept. 2020];  People ex rel. Moise v. Coveny, 175 A.D.3d 1693, 1693–1694, 106 N.Y.S.3d 643 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 912, 2020 WL 1426725 [2020]).  The record reflects that petitioner's challenge to the admission of certain DNA evidence and/or the scientific reliability thereof, as well as his claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in failing to suppress certain statements he made to law enforcement, were or could have been raised either upon his direct appeal or in the context of his subsequent CPL article 440 motion (see People ex rel. Lasher v. Tynon, 188 A.D.3d 1516, 1516, 132 N.Y.S.3d 897 [3d Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 908, 2021 WL 1134403 [2021];  People ex rel. Dixon v. Superintendent of E. Corr. Facility, 181 A.D.3d at 1108, 118 N.Y.S.3d 450).  As we discern no basis upon which to depart from traditional orderly procedures, Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (see People ex rel. Hook v. Tedford, 213 A.D.3d at 1066, 181 N.Y.S.3d 904;  People ex rel. Smythe v. Miller, 182 A.D.3d 894, 894, 120 N.Y.S.3d 865 [3d Dept. 2020], appeal dismissed & lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1056, 129 N.Y.S.3d 35, 152 N.E.3d 815 [2020];  People ex rel. Moise v. Coveny, 175 A.D.3d at 1694, 106 N.Y.S.3d 643).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Powers, JJ., concur.