Opinion
524439.
11-09-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Sidiki WEAY, Appellant, v. Daniel MARTUSCELLO, as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Sidiki Weay, Coxsackie, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Sidiki Weay, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fisher, J.), entered December 15, 2016 in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In 2001, petitioner was convicted of, among other things, murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a prison term of 22 years to life. The judgment of conviction was affirmed upon appeal ( People v. Weay, 2 A.D.3d 468, 767 N.Y.S.2d 847 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 808, 781 N.Y.S.2d 308, 814 N.E.2d 480 [2004] ), and his subsequent motion pursuant to CPL article 440 was denied ( People v. Weay, 54 A.D.3d 695, 862 N.Y.S.2d 802 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 858, 872 N.Y.S.2d 81, 900 N.E.2d 564 [2008] ). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that he is entitled to immediate release because the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. "[H]abeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claims that could have been ... raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion" ( People ex rel. Lainfiesta v. Lape, 83 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 922 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4030045 [2011] ; see People ex rel. Littlejohn v. Griffin, 133 A.D.3d 996, 997, 18 N.Y.S.3d 888 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 902, 2016 WL 1203260 [2016] ). Here, petitioner unsuccessfully raised the issue of legal sufficiency on direct appeal and in his subsequent CPL article 440 motion. Petitioner also raised the issue in his federal habeas corpus application, which was denied ( Weay v. Haponick, 2012 WL 70584, *4–7, 2012 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 1403, *11–19 [E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2012, No. 05–CV–3866 (CBA) ] ). Furthermore, even if petitioner's argument was found to be meritorious, the most he would be entitled to is a new trial, not immediate release from detention (see People ex rel. Brown v. Keane, 284 A.D.2d 813, 813, 726 N.Y.S.2d 601 [2001] ). In view of the foregoing, and finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from traditional orderly procedures, habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see People ex rel. Collins v. Billnier, 87 A.D.3d 1208, 1208, 929 N.Y.S.2d 778 [2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 802, 2011 WL 6223058 [2011] ; People ex rel. Richards v. Yelich, 87 A.D.3d 764, 765, 927 N.Y.S.2d 801 [2011], appeal dismissed and lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 922, 934 N.Y.S.2d 371, 958 N.E.2d 550 [2011] ; People ex rel. Brown v. Keane, 284 A.D.2d at 813, 726 N.Y.S.2d 601 ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
PETERS, P.J., EGAN JR., CLARK, MULVEY and PRITZKER, JJ., concur.