From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miller

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 1, 2019
175 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

528573

08-01-2019

The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. Anthony HILL, Appellant, v. Christopher MILLER, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Anthony Hill, Comstock, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Anthony Hill, Comstock, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McKeighan, J.), entered January 22, 2019 in Washington County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is currently serving a lengthy prison term following his 2009 conviction of numerous crimes, including rape and sodomy. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the indictment was defective and that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Supreme Court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. "Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature" ( People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick , 156 A.D.3d 1100, 1100, 65 N.Y.S.3d 469 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People ex rel. Gonzalez v. Smith , 122 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 995 N.Y.S.2d 846 [2014], appeal dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1203, 4 N.Y.S.3d 152, 27 N.E.3d 856 [2015] ; People ex rel. Riley v. Bradt , 91 A.D.3d 1238, 1238, 936 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2012] ). We agree with Supreme Court that the jurisdictional issues raised by petitioner are inappropriate for habeas corpus relief. As we discern no basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure, we find that Supreme Court properly denied petitioner's application (see People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick , 156 A.D.3d at 1100, 65 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; People ex rel. Woodard v. Berry , 143 A.D.2d 457, 458, 532 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1988], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 705, 539 N.Y.S.2d 298, 536 N.E.2d 627 [1989] ).

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People v. Miller

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 1, 2019
175 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York ex Rel. Anthony Hill, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Aug 1, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
103 N.Y.S.3d 863
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6048

Citing Cases

People v. Coveny

We affirm. "Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on…

People v. Superintendent of E. Corr. Facility

We affirm. "Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on…