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. Herman HENSON, Appellant, v. T.J. MILLER, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ledina, J.), entered December 5, 1996 in Sullivan County, which converted petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and dismissed the petition seeking review of a determination of the State Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for release on parole.
Petitioner appeared before the State Board of Parole for the first time in 1996 and was denied parole based on the seriousness of his crimes (murder, attempted murder and robbery in the first degree), his extensive criminal history which demonstrated a propensity for extreme violence and antisocial behavior, and his prison disciplinary record. We affirm Supreme Court's judgment dismissing petitioner's application for judicial review of this determination. Because the Board's reasons for denying parole are supported by the record and satisfy the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i, we decline to disturb its determination. We also find no error in the Board's application of current parole criteria under Executive Law § 259-i rather than the criteria found under the former statutes which were in effect at the time of petitioner's conviction (see, People ex rel. Gilmore v. New York State Parole Bd., 241 A.D.2d 793, 793-794, 661 N.Y.S.2d 78, 79; Matter of Ristau v. Hammock, 103 A.D.2d 944, 479 N.Y.S.2d 760, lv. denied 63 N.Y.2d 608, 483 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 472 N.E.2d 1043). In any event, we note that petitioner was not disadvantaged thereby; the Board's reliance on the seriousness of petitioner's crimes would have been a sufficient basis upon which to deny parole even under the former statutes (see, Matter of Ristau v. Hammock, supra). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: November 20, 1997
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)