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. Christopher McCORMACK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ledina, J.), entered November 18, 1996 in Sullivan 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 a prison inmate, serving a sentence of 25 years to life following his 1973 conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus after he was denied release on parole. Our review of the record herein discloses no abuse of discretion in respondent State Board of Parole's denial of petitioner's request for parole release. Among the factors considered by the Board were the heinous nature of the crime of which petitioner was convicted (his victim was beaten and stabbed to death), the fact that this crime was committed while petitioner was under parole supervision and his criminal history of assault and robbery. The Board also took note of petitioner's exemplary record of achievement during incarceration. As the Board considered the relevant statutory and regulatory factors, its determination will not be disturbed (see, People ex rel. Frazier v. Demsky, 238 A.D.2d 641, 656 N.Y.S.2d 956). Petitioner's contention that the Board erred in applying the standards set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (L.1977, ch. 904) to his case is unpersuasive (see, People ex rel. Gilmore v. New York State Parole Bd., 241 A.D.2d 793, 661 N.Y.S.2d 78; Matter of Rentz v. Herbert, 206 A.D.2d 944, 945, 615 N.Y.S.2d 178, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 810, 621 N.Y.S.2d 519, 645 N.E.2d 1219). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered 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 13, 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)