From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dudley v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 16, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Cobb, J.).


Petitioner was convicted in May 1967 of first degree murder involving the stabbing death of a 68-year-old woman in the course of a robbery from which defendant realized $13, which he used to buy drugs. He subsequently returned two times to the victim's apartment to steal additional property. Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years to life imprisonment. Petitioner has made five applications for release on parole, each of which was denied. The most recent denial occurred in July 1994, following which petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 review proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's application from which petitioner appeals.

Determinations rendered by the Division of Parole are discretionary and are generally not subject to judicial review if made in accordance with the requirements of the statutory guidelines ( see, Executive Law § 259-i, [2]; see also, Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423; Matter of Baker v. Russi, 188 A.D.2d 771). Petitioner contends that the Board's determination constituted an abuse of discretion because it was based on the wrong standards, that is, petitioner's lack of remorse, the brutality and depravity of the offense and petitioner's prior history of mental illness. We disagree. We find the consideration of these matters to be entirely appropriate in a determination denying parole ( see, Matter of Walker v. New York State Div. of Parole, 203 A.D.2d 757; Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 431, supra, affd 83 N.Y.2d 788; Matter of Baker v. Russi, supra). Taken together, they directly relate to the statutory standards that govern the Board's decision ( see, Executive Law § 259-i [c]). The grounds relied upon are sufficient to warrant denial of parole.

We have examined petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Dudley v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Dudley v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANK DUDLEY, Appellant, v. TRAVIS BROWN, as Chair of the…

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

Date published: May 16, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 386

Citing Cases

Matter of Silmon v. Travis

The Parole Board was plainly aware of the petitioner's institutional and educational achievements, the…

Hanna v. N.Y. State Bd. of Parole

"Appellant's argument that consideration of appellant's mental health history was inappropriate is…