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 D. ARIOLA, Appellant, v. Gary GREENE, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered August 17, 2005 in Washington County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Following his December 2002 convictions of attempted robbery in the third degree and manslaughter in the first degree, defendant was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years and seven years in prison. The judgment of conviction was thereafter affirmed by the Fourth Department (People v. Ariola, 15 A.D.3d 882, 789 N.Y.S.2d 389 [2005], amended 17 A.D.3d 1172, 793 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2005] ) and leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals (People v. Ariola, 5 N.Y.3d 784, 801 N.Y.S.2d 805, 835 N.E.2d 665 [2005] ). Defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction was dismissed. He then commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, which was denied by Supreme Court. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. In support of his application for habeas corpus relief, petitioner asserts that the provisions of CPL 730.40 were not followed during the proceedings leading to his conviction. However, inasmuch as petitioner raised this claim in his direct appeal and CPL 440.10 motion, it is not the proper subject of this habeas corpus proceeding (see People ex rel. Tunstall v. Miller, 24 A.D.3d 921, 804 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 710, 813 N.Y.S.2d 46, 846 N.E.2d 477 [2006]; People ex rel. Parsons v. Walsh, 21 A.D.3d 1169, 800 N.Y.S.2d 853 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 702, 810 N.Y.S.2d 416, 843 N.E.2d 1156 [2005] ). His other arguments likewise were, or could have been, raised in these forums. In any event, even if we were to consider his claims and conclude that they had merit, habeas corpus relief is unavailable as petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from prison (see People ex rel. Tunstall v. Miller, supra ).
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: April 27, 2006
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)