Summary
In Schmidt, the parolee apparently had only one parole violation charge lodged against him, i.e., the commission of another crime.
Summary of this case from Lindsay v. New York State Board of ParoleOpinion
Argued April 30, 1976
Decided June 3, 1976
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, IRVING GOLDMAN, J.
David F. Kunz for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Frederick R. Walsh and Jean M. Coon of counsel) for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. Appeal dismissed as moot, without costs.
Since relator has received a parole eligibility hearing it is now academic that he did not receive, as he should have, a prompt final parole revocation hearing (see Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 N.Y.2d 445). Hence, the appeal is dismissed as moot. It is not necessary to consider the appropriateness of a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain a parole revocation hearing, because, in any event, relator was lawfully detained on the subsequent criminal charge. This reasoning would result in a dismissal not only of the appeal but also of the proceeding itself, a matter of no practical significance at this time.
Appeal dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.