Opinion
2012-11-21
The PEOPLE of the State Of New York ex rel. Alvin FULTON, Appellant, v. Thomas LaVALLEY, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Alvin Fulton, Dannemora, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), for respondent.
Alvin Fulton, Dannemora, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), for respondent.
Leslie E. Swift, District Attorney, Rochester (Sandra Doorley of counsel).
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered November 3, 2011 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner, who currently is serving a 25–year prison term pursuant to his 2002 conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree ( People v. Fulton, 13 A.D.3d 1217, 786 N.Y.S.2d 760 [2004],lvs. denied4 N.Y.3d 827, 830, 835, 796 N.Y.S.2d 582, 585, 590, 829 N.E.2d 675, 678, 683 [2005] ), commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus contending, as in a prior appeal before this Court ( see People ex rel. Fulton v. Lape, 61 A.D.3d 1227, 876 N.Y.S.2d 665 [2009],appeal dismissed13 N.Y.3d 766, 886 N.Y.S.2d 867, 915 N.E.2d 1164 [2009],cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1291, 175 L.Ed.2d 1082 [2010] ), that, among other things, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds and Supreme Court granted the motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. “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. Burr v. Rock, 93 A.D.3d 977, 977, 939 N.Y.S.2d 730 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 806, 949 N.Y.S.2d 343, 972 N.E.2d 508 [2012] [citations omitted]; see People ex rel. Lainfiesta v. Lape, 83 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 922 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 708, 930 N.Y.S.2d 553, 954 N.E.2d 1179 [2011],lv. dismissed19 N.Y.3d 1007, 951 N.Y.S.2d 704, 976 N.E.2d 231 [2012];People ex rel. Fulton v. Lape, 61 A.D.3d at 1227–1228, 876 N.Y.S.2d 665). Under these circumstances, Supreme Court properly granted respondent's motion to dismiss.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.