From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Backman v. Walsh

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-13

The PEOPLE of the State of New YorK ex rel. Prince BACKMAN, Appellant, v. JIm WALSH, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Prince Backman, Fallsburg, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.



Prince Backman, Fallsburg, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, SPAIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered March 13, 2012 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.

In 1993, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal ( People v. Backman, 248 A.D.2d 164, 669 N.Y.S.2d 815 [1998] ). Thereafter, petitioner brought several CPL article 440 motions and commenced a proceeding seeking a writ of error coram nobis and a federal habeas corpus proceeding, all of which were denied. In 2010, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the indictment was defective and the trial evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application without a hearing, and petitioner now appeals.

“Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” ( People ex rel. Hemphill v. Rock, 95 A.D.3d 1579, 1579, 944 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People ex rel. Chapman v. LaClair, 64 A.D.3d 1026, 1026, 882 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 712, 2009 WL 4017062 [2009] ). The record discloses no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant departure from traditional orderly procedure ( see People ex rel. Collins v. Billnier, 87 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 929 N.Y.S.2d 778 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 802, 2011 WL 6223058 [2011] ). Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb the denial of petitioner's application.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Backman v. Walsh

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People ex rel. Backman v. Walsh

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New YorK ex rel. Prince BACKMAN, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 1316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
956 N.Y.S.2d 233
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8608

Citing Cases

People v. Rock

“Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on direct appeal…

People v. Riley

County Court denied petitioner's application and petitioner now appeals. Petitioner's arguments—concerning…