From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Cole v. Graham

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2017
147 A.D.3d 1350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

02-03-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Antonio COLE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Harold D. GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent–Respondent.

Williams, Heinl, Moody & Buschman, P.C., Auburn (Ryan James Muldoon of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.


Williams, Heinl, Moody & Buschman, P.C., Auburn (Ryan James Muldoon of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his guilty plea was coerced. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition inasmuch as petitioner's contention concerning the voluntariness of his plea "was or could have been raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440" (People ex rel. St.

Germain v. Walker, 202 A.D.2d 1053, 1053, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 758, 615 N.Y.S.2d 875, 639 N.E.2d 416 ; see People ex rel. Peoples v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 117 A.D.3d 1486, 1487, 986 N.Y.S.2d 898, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 909, 2014 WL 4236225 ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the allegations in the petition do not warrant departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Lifrieri v. Lee, 116 A.D.3d 720, 720, 982 N.Y.S.2d 782, lv. dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 952, 994 N.Y.S.2d 52, 18 N.E.3d 754, rearg. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1039, 998 N.Y.S.2d 163, 22 N.E.3d 1031 ; People ex rel. Hammock v. Meloni, 233 A.D.2d 929, 929, 649 N.Y.S.2d 873, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 807, 654 N.Y.S.2d 717, 677 N.E.2d 289 ). Moreover, habeas corpus relief is unavailable to petitioner because, even if his contentions had merit, he would be entitled only to withdraw his guilty plea and not immediate release from custody (see St. Germain, 202 A.D.2d at 1053–1054, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461 ; see generally People ex rel. Walker v. Dolce, 125 A.D.3d 1305, 1305, 3 N.Y.S.3d 485, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 910, 2015 WL 3605186 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Cole v. Graham

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2017
147 A.D.3d 1350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People ex rel. Cole v. Graham

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Antonio COLE…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 3, 2017

Citations

147 A.D.3d 1350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
47 N.Y.S.3d 178

Citing Cases

People v. Artus

n, habeas corpus relief is unavailable because petitioner's contentions "can be raised on his pending direct…

People ex rel. Smith v. Artus

With respect to the merits of the petition, habeas corpus relief is unavailable because petitioner's…