From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Rodriguez v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 2001
283 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

May 3, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone Jr., J.), entered August 22, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

David Rodriguez, Malone, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner has been in prison since 1994 serving concurrent prison sentences of 6/12; years to life for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and 4 to 9 years for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In December 1999, the Board of Parole denied petitioner's application for parole release. Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding to review that determination and we affirm.

The record demonstrates that the Board considered the relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner's request for parole release. The Board is not required to enumerate or give equal weight to each statutory factor (see, Matter of Charlemagne v. State of New York Div. of Parole, 281 A.D.2d 669 [Mar. 1, 2001]) or to expressly discuss each factor considered (see, Matter of Rivera v. State of New York Executive Dept. Bd. of Parole, 268 A.D.2d 928). In light of petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the Board's determination was affected by a "`showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety'" (Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476, quoting Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77), we find no reason to disturb the discretionary determination that petitioner was not an acceptable candidate for parole release (see, Matter of Felder v. Travis, 278 A.D.2d 570, 717 N.Y.S.2d 683).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Rodriguez v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 2001
283 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Rodriguez v. Travis

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT, v. BRION D. TRAVIS, AS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 3, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 901

Citing Cases

Trobiano v. State Div. of Parole

Thus, in our view, petitioner's application was supported by numerous compelling factors to counterbalance…

Ramahlo v. Travis

We find that the statutory requirements were met here (see, Executive Law § 259-i). The Board is not required…