From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Mabery v. Leonardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 7, 1991
177 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.).


We agree with Supreme Court's determination that petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief. His 25-year New York prison sentence will not expire until 1999 and it is this date, not the original conditional release date of February 21, 1991, which is the point in time at which the right to release would accrue (see, People ex rel. Miranda v. Kuhlmann, 127 A.D.2d 924, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 612). Thus, even if we accept petitioner's claim that his New York and North Carolina sentences ran concurrently, no habeas corpus relief would lie because his New York sentence has still not expired. In addition, putting aside the question of whether Supreme Court properly converted the matter to a CPLR article 78 proceeding, such a proceeding was time barred (see, CPLR 217; Matter of Bogle v. Mann, 175 A.D.2d 409). At the latest, petitioner was notified on December 28, 1988 of the alleged improper second computation release date. This proceeding, commenced in July 1990, exceeded the four-month Statute of Limitations and was therefore untimely.

Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Mabery v. Leonardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 7, 1991
177 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Mabery v. Leonardo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. FRED MABERY, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 745

Citing Cases

People v. Miller

Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm. As properly noted by Supreme Court, even if petitioner's…

People v. Lilley

o have merit and his sentences were to run concurrently, he would not be entitled to immediate release from…