From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Chaplin v. People

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 12, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-12

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Scott E. CHAPLIN, Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Ackerman, Wachs & Finton, P.C., Albany (Justin V. deArmas of counsel), for appellant. Robert Becher, Special Prosecutor, Albany, for respondents.


Ackerman, Wachs & Finton, P.C., Albany (Justin V. deArmas of counsel), for appellant. Robert Becher, Special Prosecutor, Albany, for respondents.

Before: ROSE, J.P., SPAIN, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and McCARTHY, JJ.

ROSE, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hummel, J.), entered November 22, 2011 in Rensselaer County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

In June 2011, petitioner was indicted on three counts of murder in the second degree stemming from a November 1994 homicide. Following arraignment, petitioner submitted a bail application and, following a hearing, County Court (Ceresia, J.) denied the application. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding alleging that County Court abused its discretion. After a hearing, Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's writ of habeas corpus and he now appeals.

We affirm. The scope of this Court's review is limited to whether County Court abused its statutory discretion by arbitrarily denying petitioner's bail application based on the record before it ( see People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Wolfson, 48 N.Y.2d 230, 232, 422 N.Y.S.2d 55, 397 N.E.2d 745 [1979]; People ex rel. Raucci v. Pollard, 68 A.D.3d 1432, 1432–1433, 889 N.Y.S.2d 872 [2009] ). Here, County Court considered the statutory factors enumerated in CPL 510.30(2)(a), including the seriousness of the crimes with which petitioner is charged, the likelihood of conviction, the potential lengthy sentence and his previous record with regard to court appearances, and there is support in the record for the conclusions reached by the court. Accordingly, we cannot say that County Court abused its “sole nonreviewable discretion” in denying bail ( People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497, 502–503, 307 N.Y.S.2d 207, 255 N.E.2d 552 [1969]; accord People ex rel. Raucci v. Pollard, 68 A.D.3d at 1433, 889 N.Y.S.2d 872; see People ex rel. Litman v. Warden of Manhattan House of Detention, 23 A.D.3d 258, 258, 804 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 708, 812 N.Y.S.2d 443, 845 N.E.2d 1274 [2006] ).

Consequently, Supreme Court did not err in dismissing petitioner's writ of habeas corpus.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

SPAIN, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and McCARTHY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Chaplin v. People

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 12, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People ex rel. Chaplin v. People

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Scott E. CHAPLIN, Appellant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 1278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
941 N.Y.S.2d 814
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2742