PEOPLE WOODARD v. LAPE (2009)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lalor, J.), entered September 4, 2007 in Greene County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is serving an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life following his 1993 conviction of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and his 1994 conviction of possession of burglar's tools.   The judgments of conviction were affirmed upon appeal (People v. Woodard, 234 A.D.2d 613, 652 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 989, 656 N.Y.S.2d 748, 678 N.E.2d 1364 [1997], cert. denied 520 U.S. 1266, 117 S.Ct. 2437, 138 L.Ed.2d 198 [1997];  People v. Woodard, 221 A.D.2d 493, 634 N.Y.S.2d 389 [1995], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 888, 645 N.Y.S.2d 462, 668 N.E.2d 433 [1996] ) and petitioner thereafter brought numerous unsuccessful motions and applications to challenge those convictions (see e.g. People ex rel. Woodard v. Burge, 49 A.D.3d 1092, 856 N.Y.S.2d 889 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 715, 862 N.Y.S.2d 336, 892 N.E.2d 402 [2008];  People ex rel. Woodard v. Burge, 41 A.D.3d 1068, 836 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 810, 844 N.Y.S.2d 786, 876 N.E.2d 515 [2007];  People ex rel. Woodard v. Artus, 18 A.D.3d 1048, 795 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 709, 803 N.Y.S.2d 30, 836 N.E.2d 1153 [2005] )-including this application for a writ of habeas corpus, which Supreme Court denied.

 Habeas corpus relief does not lie where the arguments advanced could have been raised either upon a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in the context of a collateral motion (see People ex rel. Cropper v. Taylor, 48 A.D.3d 852, 853, 849 N.Y.S.2d 809 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 710, 859 N.Y.S.2d 396, 889 N.E.2d 83 [2008];  People ex rel. Encarnacion v. McGinnis, 2 A.D.3d 933, 933, 767 N.Y.S.2d 708 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 510, 777 N.Y.S.2d 19, 808 N.E.2d 1278 [2004] ).   Inasmuch as the issues presented herein could have been raised either upon petitioner's direct appeal or in the context of his various CPL article 440 motions, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, Supreme Court's judgment is affirmed.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.