From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rhoden v. State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 2, 2000
270 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 2, 2000

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered May 26, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Esmer Rhoden, Malone, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 6 to 18 years following his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. This conviction stemmed from petitioner's action in inflicting a fatal stab wound on his roommate during an argument. Petitioner was previously denied parole release in 1996. Petitioner's latest application for parole release was again denied and, following an administrative appeal, the Board of Parole's decision was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the merits and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion for a default judgment premised upon respondent's short delay in timely serving an answer (see, CPLR 7804 [e]). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the record discloses that the Board considered all relevant factors in denying petitioner's parole request, including petitioner's certificate of earned eligibility and positive accomplishments while incarcerated as well as the seriousness of the offense and his attempts to minimize his responsibility. Accordingly, judicial review of the Board's determination is precluded (see, Executive Law § 259-i Exec. [5]; see also, Matter of Anthony v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 704, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 812, cert denied 525 U.S. 1183). We have examined petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive under the circumstances.

MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Rhoden v. State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 2, 2000
270 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Rhoden v. State Division of Parole

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ESMER RHODEN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 521

Citing Cases

Salamone v. State

Defendant asserts that, "[w]hile Correction Law § 805 uses mandatory language to create a presumption in…

Matter of Morel v. Travis

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit. The Board's denial of…