Opinion

People ex rel. Brown v. Griffin

  • 123 A.D.3d 1281
  • 999 N.Y.S.2d 220
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Dec 11, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry, Rose, Devine
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.7%

The opinion

State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 11, 2014 518951

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK ex rel. EDWARD

BROWN,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS GRIFFIN, as

Superintendent of Eastern

Correctional Facility,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 21, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Edward Brown, Dannemora, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric,

J.), entered April 7, 2014 in Ulster County, which denied

petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 2002, petitioner was sentenced to a minimum prison term

of 22 years following his conviction of various crimes, including

burglary in the first degree. The convictions were upheld upon

direct appeal (People v Brown, 16 AD3d 430, 431 [2005], lv denied

4 NY3d 852 [2005]). He commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding

seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging that any purported

waiver of his immunity before the grand jury was ineffective.

-2- 518951

Habeas corpus relief does not lie where, as here,

petitioner's argument could have been raised either in the

context of a collateral motion or upon a direct appeal from the

judgment of conviction (see People ex rel. Thigpen v Cunningham,

85 AD3d 1512, 1513 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]).

Moreover, petitioner has admittedly raised this issue

unsuccessfully on direct appeal and in various prior habeas

corpus proceedings. Under these circumstances, and in light of

the fact that the record discloses no extraordinary circumstances

warranting a departure from traditional orderly procedure,

Supreme Court's judgment is affirmed (see People ex rel. Brown v

Artus, 64 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009];

People ex rel. Franza v Lape, 61 AD3d 1200 [2009]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.