This case is about the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner who challenged his continued incarceration in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). He argued that the delinquent time assessment imposed on November 5, 2008 following his final parole revocation hearing already expired on February 17, 2010.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said it all started on September 10, 1997 when petitioner was convicted of the crime of Arson in the second degree and was given an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years. In 2006, he was released from DOCS custody to parole supervision. His parole was subsequently revoked and was sent to a drug rehab center. In January 2007, Petitioner was released back to community based parole supervision, but thereafter, violated again the conditions of his release. He was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.
On September 10, 1997 petitioner was sentenced in Oneida County Court, to an indeterminate sentence of 7 to 14 years, upon his conviction of the crime of Arson 2°. Petitioner was first released form DOCS custody to parole supervision in September of 2006. His parole, however, was subsequently revoked but restored at the Willard Drug Treatment Campus. Petitioner was released from Willard back to community-based parole supervision in January of 2007 but he again violated the conditions of release and was returned to DOCS custody as a parole violator.
On June 11, 2008, Petitioner was again released to parole supervision. On October 20, 2008, Petitioner was served with a Notice of Violation/Violation of Release Report charging him with possession of a quantity of controlled substance, specifically, marijuana, which was found in his bedroom…” The Notice of Violation/Violation of Release Report was served on petitioner at the Rensselaer County Jail where he was apparently held in connection with new criminal charges.
On November 5, 2008, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a final parole revocation hearing was conducted, at which time petitioner pled guilty to Parole Violation Charge of drug possession and the remaining charges were withdrawn with prejudice. Petitioner’s parole was revoked and a 16-month delinquent time assessment, anticipated to expire on February 17, 2010, was imposed. In imposing such time assessment the presiding Administrative Law Judge noted that felony rape charges were pending against petitioner.
On May 27, 2009, Petitioner was convicted in Justice Court, Town of Nassau, of the crimes of Sexual Misconduct (Penal Law §130.20(1)) and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, both misdemeanors. y reason of his Sexual Misconduct conviction, however, petitioner is a “sex offender” under the provisions of Correction Law §i68-a(i) and (2)(a)(i). A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said it appears that petitioner was received back into DOCS custody on June 25, 2009. He was approved for re-release to parole supervision upon the expiration of his delinquent time assessment on February 17, 2010, but conditions were imposed as follows:
“[Petitioner] WILL PROPOSE A RESIDENCE TO BE APPROVED BY THE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND WILL ASSIST THE DIVISION IN ANY EFFORTS IT MAY MAKE ON [petitioner’s] BEHALF TO DEVELOP AN APPROVED RESIDENCE.
[Petitioner] WILL RESIDE ONLY IN THE RESIDENCE APPROVED BY THE DIVISION OF PAROLE.”
Petitioner further argued that his continued custody was due to the fact that the DOCS officials have confused him with another inmate named “James Brown” (96-A-4838), who was sentenced in Suffolk County Court on June 13, 1996 to a controlling, aggregate indeterminate sentence of 20 to 40 years upon his convictions of the crimes of Rape 1°, Sodomy 1° and Burglary 2°. In support of that suggestion petitioner asserts that upon inquiry into his own incarceration, pursuant to a F.O.I.L. request, he received a copy of the Sentence & Commitment Order of the other “James Brown.”
It is a well-settled doctrine that “The imposition of a special [parole] condition is discretionary in nature and ordinarily beyond judicial review as long as it is made in accordance with law and no positive statutory requirement is violated… If the condition is rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chances of recidivism, Supreme Court has no authority to substitute its own discretion for that of the individuals in charge of designing the terms of petitioner’s parole release.”
In this case, The Court held that the imposition of the “suitable residence” condition in the case at bar was rational in view of petitioner’s arson conviction with multiple parole violations, together with his recent conviction of a misdemeanor sex crime committed while under parole supervision from the arson conviction. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said moreover, the court finds nothing in the petition which can be construed as a challenge to the rationality of the application of the “suitable residence” condition to any particular residence proposed by petitioner.
Finally, the Court ruled that there is nothing in the record before it to support any inference that parole officials erroneously considered the disturbing criminal record of the other “James Brown” when the “suitable residence” condition was imposed on petitioner. Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that information pertaining to the other “James Brown” was erroneously transmitted by parole officials to any person/entity considering an offer of housing to petitioner.
Our New York Criminal Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates has vast experiences with cases similar to that discussed above. It can help you and your loved with during this difficult time. It has offices within New York Metropolitan area.