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. Mark LEE, Appellant, v. Raymond J. CUNNINGHAM, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered June 30, 2005 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In December 1996, petitioner was convicted following a nonjury trial of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana. His motion to set aside the verdict was denied and he was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to a lengthy prison term. Petitioner's conviction was later affirmed on appeal (People v. Lee, 258 A.D.2d 352, 687 N.Y.S.2d 312 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 900, 689 N.Y.S.2d 712, 711 N.E.2d 988 [1999] ), and his subsequent motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and application for federal habeas corpus relief were denied. Petitioner thereafter brought this application for a writ of habeas corpus in Sullivan County where he is currently incarcerated. Supreme Court dismissed the application without a hearing and this appeal ensued.
In support of his application, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury and the propriety of certain pretrial rulings by the trial court relating thereto. However, inasmuch as these claims could have been raised in the context of petitioner's direct appeal or CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not the proper remedy (see People ex rel. Burr v. Smith, 6 A.D.3d 841, 841, 773 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 605, 785 N.Y.S.2d 21, 818 N.E.2d 663 [2004]; Matter of Lebron v. Herbert, 287 A.D.2d 917, 918, 731 N.Y.S.2d 679 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 609, 739 N.Y.S.2d 357, 765 N.E.2d 853 [2002] ). Moreover, we find no evidence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Carter v. Miller, 261 A.D.2d 674, 675, 691 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1999] ).
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 20, 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)