Opinion
November 5, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Petitioner was convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment as a second felony offender for a term of 12 1/2 to 25 years. At the time petitioner commenced this proceeding, the Appellate Division, First Department, had affirmed the judgment of conviction ( People v Vasquez, 80 A.D.2d 754, mot for lv to app den. 53 N.Y.2d 712).
The petitioner attempts in the instant proceeding to challenge his conviction on the ground that he was deprived of counsel at his pretrial interrogation. It is unclear from the record as to whether this issue was raised on his original appeal. However, the issue appears to be one which could have been raised on appeal. It may not be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding (see People ex rel. Small v Scully, 92 A.D.2d 943; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 67 A.D.2d 587, aff'd. 50 N.Y.2d 901). Furthermore, habeas corpus will not lie because the petitioner's claims, even if meritorious, would result in a new trial and not a directive that he be released from custody ( People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction, 60 N.Y.2d 648; People ex rel. Taylor v Commissioner of Correction, 100 A.D.2d 525; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901, supra).
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.