From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Austin v. Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 21, 2000
278 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 21, 2000.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Essex County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner's parole.

Jamine Austin, Raybrook, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

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


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a final parole revocation hearing, petitioner's parole was revoked based upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof by striking his mother during a domestic dispute. The police officer who responded to the family dispute call placed by petitioner's mother testified that when he arrived at the scene, the mother's face was swollen and she appeared to have been hit in the eye. According to both the police officer and petitioner's parole officer, the mother stated that petitioner struck her during a domestic dispute. Under these circumstances, the record amply supports the determination that petitioner violated the condition of his parole prohibiting him from engaging in unlawful or threatening behavior (see, People ex rel. Fahim v. Lacy, 266 A.D.2d 612, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 759). Although the mother testified at the hearing that the injuries were accidental, this created a credibility issue for the Administrative Law Judge to resolve (see,id., at 612).

Finally, we reject petitioner's contentions that the parole revocation guidelines set forth in 9 NYCRR 8005.20 (c) violate the ex post facto doctrine (see, People ex rel. Gaito v. Couture, 269 A.D.2d 709, 710, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 754; People ex rel. Tyler v. Travis, 269 A.D.2d 636, 637) and that inaudible portions of the hearing tape render the hearing transcript deficient (see, Matter of Graham v. New York State Div. of Parole, 269 A.D.2d 628, 629, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 753).

Petitioner's remaining contentions are unpreserved for review or have been found to be without merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Austin v. Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 21, 2000
278 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In the Matter of Austin v. Division of Parole

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMINE AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. DIVISION OF PAROLE…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 756

Citing Cases

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

roduce a certificate of conviction. Notably, at no point did petitioner dispute the existence of the Florida…

Kravetz v. New York State Div. of Parole

Here, the testimony of one of the victims and the sworn statement of the other provided substantial evidence…