From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warren v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 10, 2003
307 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

92861

Decided and Entered: July 10, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered October 23, 2002 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Vincent Warren, Otisville, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner is currently serving concurrent sentences of 20 years to life and 7 to 20 years after being convicted in 1978 of second degree murder and second degree attempted murder, respectively. In October 2001, petitioner's third appearance before the Board of Parole resulted in denial of his request for parole release as incompatible with the welfare of society based upon the violent nature of the instant offense and escalation of his prior criminal conduct. Contrary to petitioner's contention on appeal, he has no protected liberty interest in parole release once his minimum sentence is served (see Matter of Vineski v. Travis, 244 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 809; Matter of M.G. v. Travis, 236 A.D.2d 163, 167, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 814). Although the Board placed particular emphasis on the instant offense, the record establishes that in determining that petitioner's release would be incompatible with the public welfare, all relevant statutory factors were considered, including his institutional and educational achievements (see Matter of Atkins v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 289 A.D.2d 667; Matter of Felder v. Travis, 278 A.D.2d 570), and the determination is not subject to further judicial review (see Executive Law § 259-i; Matter of Bridget v. Travis, 300 A.D.2d 776). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and, to the extent that they are preserved, found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Warren v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 10, 2003
307 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Warren v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT WARREN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: Jul 10, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

Partee v. Evans

Petitioner incorrectly states that he has a liberty interest in release to parole. See Matter of Warren v.…

Motti

We affirm. Initially, we note that, contrary to petitioner's claim, the fact that he has served his minimum…