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. Luciano SUCE, Appellant, v. Justin A. TAYLOR, as Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 3, 2006 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In 1987, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years upon his conviction of the crime of kidnapping in the second degree. He was released to parole supervision in 2000. In August 2004, he was charged with parole violations. After a hearing, his parole was revoked and he was directed held until the maximum expiration of his sentence. Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus after an unsuccessful administrative appeal. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. The parole violation charge that petitioner used opiates without medical authorization was supported by credible evidence at his parole revocation hearing, including a toxicology report (see People ex rel. Brazeau v. McLaughlin, 233 A.D.2d 724, 725, 650 N.Y.S.2d 361 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 810, 656 N.Y.S.2d 738, 678 N.E.2d 1354 [1997] ). Notably, petitioner did not deny the charges of curfew violation, refusal to submit to a drug test and leaving the parole office without completing his report, all of which were supported by testimonial evidence.
Petitioner's refusal to appear at the last session of his parole revocation hearing constituted a waiver of his right to be present. His challenge to the time assessment guidelines of the Board of Parole is also without merit as the ex post facto doctrine does not apply to regulations (see 9 NYCRR 8005.20[c]; Matter of Robinson v. Bennett, 300 A.D.2d 715, 716, 752 N.Y.S.2d 730 [2002] ). To the extent that petitioner's additional claims are preserved, we have reviewed them and conclude that they are without merit.
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: February 01, 2007
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)