From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Smith v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1998
253 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.).


Petitioner was released on parole from a sentence imposed following his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Thereafter, petitioner's parole was revoked based upon his plea of guilty of failing to report to his parole officer and he was reincarcerated without further consideration for parole for 36 months. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's challenge to his parole revocation, prompting this appeal.

Decisions by the Board of Parole constitute discretionary acts and are not subject to review if made in accordance with the law ( see, Executive Law § 259-i Exec. [5]; Matter of Gray v. Travis, 239 A.D.2d 631). Notwithstanding the fact that this was petitioner's first parole violation since being released 41 months earlier, we reject his contention that the 36-month hold was excessive. Furthermore, the Board appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of the instant offense in assessing the time for his reincarceration ( see generally, Matter of Cruz v. New York State Dept. of Parole, 212 A.D.2d 699). Petitioner's assertion that the Board improperly relied on a prior youthful offender adjudication is not supported by the record. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Smith v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1998
253 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Smith v. Travis

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN SMITH, Appellant, v. BRION D. TRAVIS, as Chair of…

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

Date published: Sep 17, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 917

Citing Cases

Santiago v. Dennison

The argument that the ALJ failed to give a written statement ( see Executive Law § 259-i [f] [xi]) is belied…

Matter of Bellamy v. State Division of Parole

In our view, this proof constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination revoking petitioner's…