From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Bariteau v. Donelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

97701.

December 22, 2005.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 2, 2005 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.


Petitioner, who had been convicted of robbery in the second degree, was released to parole supervision in February 2001. When he subsequently violated the conditions of his parole, his parole was revoked and a delinquent time assessment of 24 months was imposed. Petitioner then brought the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the 24-month delinquent time assessment was based on certain 1997 regulations enacted after his underlying conviction ( see 9 NYCRR 8005.20), and, therefore, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution. Finding that a habeas corpus proceeding was an inappropriate remedy, Supreme Court denied the petition without signing the writ or conducting a hearing. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, we note that habeas corpus relief is not available where the claimed error could have been remedied on administrative appeal ( see People ex rel. Gaito v. Couture, 269 AD2d 709, 710, lv denied 95 NY2d 754). Petitioner did not file a timely administrative appeal. Moreover, were petitioner to prevail on his claim, he would only be entitled to a recalculation of his delinquent time assessment without reference to the challenged regulations, not to immediate release from prison, again making habeas corpus relief inappropriate ( see e.g. People ex rel. Simpson v. Greene, 18 AD3d 923, lv denied 5 NY3d 707; People ex rel. Pilgrim v. Greene, 16 AD3d 787, lv denied 5 NY3d 706). In any event, the challenge that petitioner raises has been previously considered and rejected by the courts ( see People ex rel. Muhammad v. Poole, 287 AD2d 832, 833; People ex rel. Gaito v. Couture, supra at 710).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Bariteau v. Donelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Bariteau v. Donelli

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. SHAWN BARITEAU, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2005

Citations

24 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
806 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

People v. Sears

Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the record demonstrated that petitioner had been duly…

People v. Coveny

Here, petitioner was detained in Virginia at the time that the parole violation warrant was lodged on…