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: Jesse PARSONS, Petitioner, v. CHAIRMAN OF the NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which revoked petitioner's parole.
In 1991, petitioner was convicted of sodomy in the first degree and sentenced to a prison term the maximum of which expires on August 31, 1998. Following his release on parole on May 1, 1996, petitioner was charged with, and subsequently found guilty of, violating a condition of his parole which required that he “enter and complete” an alcohol and/or drug treatment program. This finding resulted in a determination revoking petitioner's parole status. Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to challenge this determination. Initially, we reject respondent's assertion that this proceeding is academic due to petitioner's conditional release to parole supervision on December 12, 1997. Because “ ‘the impact of the parole violation charges does not end with petitioner's release from prison, but may continue to affect matters such as the maximum parole expiration date’ ”, we find that this matter is not moot (Matter of Newcomb v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 A.D.2d 1098, 452 N.Y.S.2d 912, quoting Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 884, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 400 N.E.2d 1335). In addressing the merits of this proceeding, it is well settled that this court must confirm the determination revoking parole if it finds that the respondent adhered to all procedural requirements and the determination can be supported by the record (see, Matter of Alexander v. New York State Div. of Parole, 236 A.D.2d 761, 761-762, 654 N.Y.S.2d 835). We find that both requirements are present here. No procedural violations are evident in the record and we find that the testimony presented with respect to petitioner's refusal to undergo the treatment plan recommended to him adequately supports the determination.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: April 02, 1998
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)