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: Johnny HARTWELL, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered January 17, 2008 in Greene County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, remanded the matter to the Board of Parole for a de novo hearing.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree as well as criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 3 1/212 to 7 years in prison. In December 2006, he made his first appearance before the Board of Parole seeking parole release. His request was denied and he was ordered held for an additional 24 months. When his administrative appeal was not acted upon, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Prior to serving an answer, respondent conceded that the Board did not have the sentencing minutes before it during the parole hearing and consented to a de novo hearing at which such minutes would be considered. Accordingly, Supreme Court rendered a judgment remanding the matter to the Board for this purpose. Petitioner filed an objection to the judgment, but Supreme Court declined to disturb it. This appeal ensued.
Petitioner challenges the Board's denial of his request for parole, arguing that it improperly based its decision on the seriousness of his crimes and past criminal history without considering the other relevant statutory factors. However, Supreme Court granted petitioner the appropriate relief by remanding the matter for a de novo hearing at which the Board is to consider petitioner's sentencing minutes (see Matter of Quartararo v. New York State Div. of Parole, 224 A.D.2d 266, 637 N.Y.S.2d 721 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 805, 646 N.Y.S.2d 984, 670 N.E.2d 225 [1996] ). In view of this, the judgment must be affirmed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: December 11, 2008
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)