Opinion
2011-08-4
In the Matter of Jamie LaMERE, Petitioner,v.Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Jamie Lamere, Comstock, petitioner pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with stalking, making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures in connection with a letter written by him to the victim of the offense for which he is currently incarcerated. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all three charges and was penalized with six months in the special housing unit, 24 months loss of correspondence privileges and 12 months loss of good time. On administrative appeal, the determination and penalty were upheld. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Initially, inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges of making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures, he is precluded from challenging the determination of guilt with regard to those charges ( see Matter of Anthony v. Fischer, 81 A.D.3d 1027, 1027, 916 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2011]; Matter of Surdis v. Walsh, 301 A.D.2d 900, 900, 752 N.Y.S.2d 925 [2003] ). The misbehavior report, supporting documentation and confidential documents, as well as petitioner's own admission that he authored the subject letter, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt on the charge of stalking ( see Matter of Anthony v. Fischer, 81 A.D.3d at 1027, 916 N.Y.S.2d 280; Matter of Davis v. Fischer, 76 A.D.3d 1154, 1155, 907 N.Y.S.2d 722 [2010]; Matter of Devaughn v. Bezio, 75 A.D.3d 673, 673–674, 903 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2010] ). Given the violent nature of the threats made and that they were lodged against the victim of petitioner's current offense within months of his tentative release date, we are not persuaded by petitioner's contention that the penalty imposed was excessive ( see Matter of Barton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 81 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 917 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2011]; Matter of Roussopoulas v. Cunningham, 76 A.D.3d 730, 731, 905 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2010]; Matter of Griswold v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 908, 909, 835 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2007] ). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.