From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 13, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 501629.

September 13, 2007.

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered September 19, 2006 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Charles E. Washington, Fallsburg, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Hannah Stith Long of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.


In 1995, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 35 years to life. His conviction was affirmed by the Second Department ( People v Washington, 253 AD2d 777, lv denied 92 NY2d 1040). He has filed four separate unsuccessful motions to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL article 440. His application for a writ of error coram nobis was similarly unsuccessful ( People v Washington, 288 AD2d 408), as was his federal application for a writ of habeas corpus ( Washington v Walsh, 2002 WL 2003207, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 16312 [ED NY 2002]). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus based upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary errors at trial, wrongful deprivation of transcripts and the imposition of an improper and unconstitutional sentence. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application without a hearing, prompting this appeal.

Petitioner's arguments either already were raised in, or should have been addressed through, his direct appeal or a CPL article 440 motion, making them improper subjects of this habeas corpus proceeding ( see People ex rel. Ariola v Greene, 28 AD3d 1038, 1039, lv denied 7 NY3d 706). In any event, habeas corpus relief is unavailable to petitioner because none of his arguments, even if found to be meritorious, would form the basis for his immediate release from prison ( see People ex rel. Tunstall v Miller, 24 AD3d 921, 921, lv denied 6 NY3d 710). Accordingly, we affirm.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 13, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

People v. Walsh

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CHARLES E. WASHINGTON…

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

Date published: Sep 13, 2007

Citations

43 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6600
841 N.Y.S.2d 713

Citing Cases

People v. Walsh

We affirm. An application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for claims which could…

People v. Schenectady County Court

In his application for habeas corpus relief, petitioner challenges the legality of his sentence and the…