From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olmosperez v. Evans

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 20, 2014
114 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-02-20

In the Matter of Noel OLMOSPEREZ, Appellant, v. Andrea W. EVANS, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

Noel Olmosperez, Rome, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.


Noel Olmosperez, Rome, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered June 25, 2013 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 parole release.

Petitioner is presently serving two concurrent prison sentences of 22 years to life as the result of his convictions for murder in the second degree. He reappeared before the Board of Parole in February 2012, at which time the Board denied his request for parole release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. After he failed to receive a timely response to his administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal by petitioner.

We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the Board considered the relevant statutory factors in denying his request for parole release, including his positive programming and disciplinary record, plans upon release, his COMPAS risk and reentry needs assessment, nature of the instant offense and expressions of remorse. While the Board placed particular emphasis on the heinous and callous nature of the offense, we are unpersuaded that this demonstrates “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Lashway v. Evans, 110 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 974 N.Y.S.2d 164 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).

Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. STEIN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY and ROSE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Olmosperez v. Evans

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 20, 2014
114 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Olmosperez v. Evans

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Noel OLMOSPEREZ, Appellant, v. Andrea W. EVANS, as Chair…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 2014

Citations

114 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
114 A.D.3d 1077
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1237

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Stanford

Since, as noted previously, the requisite statutory factors were considered, and given the narrow scope of…

Thomas v. Stanford

Since, as noted previously, the requisite statutory factors were considered, and given the narrow scope of…