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: Jamine AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Essex County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner's parole.
Following a final parole revocation hearing, petitioner's parole was revoked based upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof by striking his mother during a domestic dispute. The police officer who responded to the family dispute call placed by petitioner's mother testified that when he arrived at the scene, the mother's face was swollen and she appeared to have been hit in the eye. According to both the police officer and petitioner's parole officer, the mother stated that petitioner struck her during a domestic dispute. Under these circumstances, the record amply supports the determination that petitioner violated the condition of his parole prohibiting him from engaging in unlawful or threatening behavior (see, People ex rel. Fahim v. Lacy, 266 A.D.2d 612, 697 N.Y.S.2d 737, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 759, 705 N.Y.S.2d 6, 726 N.E.2d 483). Although the mother testified at the hearing that the injuries were accidental, this created a credibility issue for the Administrative Law Judge to resolve (see, id., at 612, 697 N.Y.S.2d 737).
Finally, we reject petitioner's contentions that the parole revocation guidelines set forth in 9 NYCRR 8005.20(c) violate the ex post facto doctrine (see, People ex rel. Gaito v. Couture, 269 A.D.2d 709, 710, 704 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 754, 711 N.Y.S.2d 156, 733 N.E.2d 228; People ex rel. Tyler v. Travis, 269 A.D.2d 636, 637, 702 N.Y.S.2d 705) and that inaudible portions of the hearing tape render the hearing transcript deficient (see, Matter of Graham v. New York State Div. of Parole, 269 A.D.2d 628, 629, 702 N.Y.S.2d 708, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 753, 711 N.Y.S.2d 155, 733 N.E.2d 227).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are unpreserved for review or have been found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: December 21, 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)