From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Henderson v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 6, 2000
268 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 6, 2000

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) entered March 4, 1999 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 release on parole.

Robert Henderson, New York City, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In April 1998, the Board of Parole denied petitioner's application for parole release, concluding that petitioner's release would be incompatible with the welfare of the community in light of the fact that the instant offense represented a continuation of his past criminal history, which had yielded four felony convictions. Initially, we reject petitioner's claim that the Board failed to consider his achievements while an inmate at the State correctional facility in determining his application for parole. The Board properly considered petitioner's criminal history, the nature of his current conviction and his release plans; "it was not required to enumerate or give equal weight to each factor that it considered in determining his application for parole" (Matter of Farid v. Travis, 239 A.D.2d 629, 629; see, Matter of Patterson v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 202 A.D.2d 940). A review of the record establishes that the Board properly considered relevant factors and statutory requirements in denying petitioner's request for parole and, therefore, there exists no basis upon which to disturb the Board's determination (see, Matter of Vineski v. Travis, 244 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 809; Matter of Dudley v. Brown, 227 A.D.2d 863, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 812). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Henderson v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 6, 2000
268 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Henderson v. Travis

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT HENDERSON, Appellant, v. BRION D. TRAVIS, as…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
700 N.Y.S.2d 770

Citing Cases

Matter of Serna v. New York S. Div., Parole

Moreover, the Board's decision specifically recites that, in addition to the interview with petitioner, the…

Matter of May v. State Division of Parole

In any event, the Board's decision was also based on the extreme gravity of the offenses for which petitioner…