From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2001
289 A.D.2d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(1786) KAH 01-00148

December 21, 2001.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J. — Habeas Corpus.)

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, SCUDDER, BURNS AND GORSKI, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because petitioner failed to serve the writ on respondents ( see, CPLR 7005), Supreme Court should have dismissed the proceeding based on lack of personal jurisdiction over respondents ( see, Matter of Luongo v. Luongo, 111 A.D.2d 333, 334-335). In any event, the court properly denied the petition on the merits. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the application of the 1997 parole guidelines ( see, 9 NYCRR 8005.20 [c]) to him does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws ( see, People ex rel. Johnson v. Russi, 258 A.D.2d 346, 347, appeal dismissed and lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 945; see also, People ex rel. Vasquez v. McCoy, 280 A.D.2d 929, lv dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 823; Matter of Williams v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 277 A.D.2d 617). Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the court properly denied the petition without holding a hearing because there was no indication in the papers before the court that petitioner was being illegally detained ( see, CPLR 7003 [a]; People ex rel. Brown v. Murray, 284 A.D.2d 987, 988).


Summaries of

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2001
289 A.D.2d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. TONY FIELDS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 21, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 466

Citing Cases

Thurman v. Allard

Because this claim is not "significant and obvious," Mayo, 13 F.3d at 533 — and, moreover, entirely meritless…