From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

524816

12-14-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. Scott R. NAILOR, Appellant, v. Michael KIRKPATRICK, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Scott R. Nailor, Dannemora, appellant pro se.


Scott R. Nailor, Dannemora, appellant pro se.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 22, 2017 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is currently serving an aggregate prison term of 25 to 75 years following his 1999 conviction of multiple counts of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. He commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that, among other things, the indictment was defective and Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application without a hearing, and petitioner now appeals.

"Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature" ( People ex rel. Miller v. Rock, 109 A.D.3d 1062, 1062, 971 N.Y.S.2d 486 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People ex rel. Fauntleroy v. Rock, 113 A.D.3d 982, 983, 978 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2014], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 865, 986 N.Y.S.2d 19, 9 N.E.3d 369 [2014] ; People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham, 106 A.D.3d 1303, 1304, 965 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2013] ). We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner's contentions could have been raised on his direct appeal. As we perceive no basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied his application (see People ex rel. Fauntleroy v. Rock, 113 A.D.3d at 983, 978 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; People ex rel. Cato v. Tedford, 108 A.D.3d 988, 989, 968 N.Y.S.2d 914 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 855, 978 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1 N.E.3d 316 [2013] ; People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham, 106 A.D.3d at 1304, 965 N.Y.S.2d 237 ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People ex rel. Nailor v. Kirkpatrick

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. Scott R. NAILOR, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
156 A.D.3d 1100
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 8781

Citing Cases

People v. Miller

We affirm. "Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on…

People v. Keyser

Petitioner appeals.Even assuming, without deciding, that the apparent absence of the grand jury foreperson's…