From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Franza v. Sheahan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2012
100 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-11-29

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Dominic M. FRANZA, Appellant, v. Michael SHEAHAN, as Acting Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Dominic M. Franza, Sonyea, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.


Dominic M. Franza, Sonyea, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals from a judgment and an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (Hayden, J.), entered February 10, 2012 and March 2, 2012 in Chemung County, which *505denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is serving a lengthy term of imprisonment and has unsuccessfully pursued habeas corpus relief in the past upon the ground that the indictment against him was filed as waived due to the presence of the word “Waived” on the indictment's pre-printed form backer ( People ex rel. Franza v. Walsh, 76 A.D.3d 1160, 1160, 907 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 716, 917 N.Y.S.2d 106, 942 N.E.2d 317 [2010],cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 3038, 180 L.Ed.2d 858 [2011] ). Petitioner now asserts that the presence of a handwritten “W” on the similar backer of a superceded indictment further demonstrated an intent to withdraw the charges against him. To the extent that his present argument was not “presented and determined” upon his prior application for habeas corpus relief ( seeCPLR 7003[b] ), that relief is nevertheless inappropriate here because his argument could have been raised upon direct appeal or in an appropriate postjudgment motion ( see People ex rel. Riley v. Bradt, 91 A.D.3d 1238, 936 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2012];People ex rel. Purdie v. LaValley, 86 A.D.3d 883, 884, 928 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2011] ). Inasmuch as no reason exists to depart from traditional orderly procedure, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition ( see id.).

ORDERED that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed, without costs.

ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Franza v. Sheahan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2012
100 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People ex rel. Franza v. Sheahan

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Dominic M. FRANZA, Appellant…

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

Date published: Nov 29, 2012

Citations

100 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8204
954 N.Y.S.2d 504

Citing Cases

People v. Tedford

Habeas corpus relief is not available where, as here, the claims asserted by petitioner could have been…

People v. Connolly

Since the contentions raised by the petitioner in support of habeas corpus relief could have been raised on…