Opinion
May 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel's application to withdraw granted (see, People v Crawford, 71 A.D.2d 38). Memorandum: Upon our review of the appeal, we agree with assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on relator's behalf and, therefore, we grant counsel's application to withdraw (see, People v Crawford, 71 A.D.2d 38, supra). Habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the facts alleged in the petition would not entitle the relator to immediate release from custody but only to consideration for release by the time allowance committee (see, Correction Law § 803, [4]; People ex rel. Miranda v Kuhlman, 127 A.D.2d 924, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 612; Matter of Midgley v Smith, 63 A.D.2d 223, 227). Also, an application for relief from the alleged error in the order of commitment must be directed to the court that issued the order. The sentencing court has the inherent power to correct the alleged discrepancy between the stenographic minutes of the sentence and the order of commitment (see, People v Davis, 161 A.D.2d 787, 788, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 939; see also, People v Wright, 56 N.Y.2d 613; People v Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 364-365, cert denied 455 U.S. 1024).