Opinion
KAH 02-01260
June 13, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Shaheen, J.), entered April 16, 2002, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
DAVID M. GIGLIO, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. In November 1999, while released on parole supervision on a sentence of 15 years to life, petitioner was charged with several offenses and pleaded guilty to, inter alia, a felony in satisfaction of those charges. On November 9, 2000, petitioner was sentenced on the new conviction to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. Because petitioner was convicted of offenses committed while on parole supervision, his parole was revoked by operation of law ( see Executive Law 259-i [d] [iii]). Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, he was not entitled to a final revocation hearing ( see People ex rel. Melendez v. Bennett, 291 A.D.2d 590, 591, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 602; Matter of Cruz v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 288 A.D.2d 572, 573, appeal dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 725; Matter of Warley v. Rodriguez, 145 A.D.2d 901). Contrary to his further contention, we conclude that petitioner was not held illegally past his conditional release date on the new conviction. The original sentence was interrupted by the declaration of delinquency ( see Penal Law 70.40 [a]; Cruz, 288 A.D.2d at 573) and the sentence on the new conviction runs consecutively to the sentence on the original conviction (see 70.25 [2-a]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.