Opinion
2012-01-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Adrian RILEY, Appellant, v. Mark L. BRADT, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Adrian Riley, Elmira, appellant pro se. *922 Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), for respondent.
Adrian Riley, Elmira, appellant pro se. *922 Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), entered April 4, 2011 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In January 2009, petitioner was convicted following a jury trial of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and was sentenced to 25 years in prison, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision. Thereafter, he made an application pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court issued a written decision and judgment denying the application without a hearing and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. It is well settled that habeas corpus relief is not the proper remedy to address matters that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion ( see People ex rel. Hall v. Bradt, 85 A.D.3d 1422, 1422, 924 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2011]; People ex rel. Berry v. LaClair, 65 A.D.3d 1428, 885 N.Y.S.2d 435 [2009] ). Petitioner here challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, claiming that the indictment was defective because it was not properly filed in accordance with CPL 210.05. Inasmuch as this jurisdictional claim could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, Supreme Court properly denied the application ( see People ex rel. Ward v. Corcoran, 59 A.D.3d 1089, 1089, 872 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2009]; People ex rel. Moore v. Connolly, 56 A.D.3d 847, 848, 867 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 701, 876 N.Y.S.2d 348, 904 N.E.2d 503 [2009] ). Under the circumstances presented, we find no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure ( see People ex rel. Chapman v. LaClair, 64 A.D.3d 1026, 1026–1027, 882 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 712, 2009 WL 4017062 [2009]; People ex rel. Alvarez v. West, 22 A.D.3d 996, 996, 802 N.Y.S.2d 391 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 704, 811 N.Y.S.2d 336, 844 N.E.2d 791 [2006] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.