Opinion
2013-05-16
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Timothy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Raymond CUNNINGHAM, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Timothy Williams, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.
Timothy Williams, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered May 15, 2012 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree ( People v. Williams, 88 A.D.2d 983, 451 N.Y.S.2d 787 [1982],lv. denied57 N.Y.2d 690, 454 N.Y.S.2d 1053, 440 N.E.2d 547 [1982] ), commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the People failed to secure a lawful indictment. Supreme Court denied the application without a hearing. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm. Significantly, “habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claims that could have been ... raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion” ( People ex rel. Collins v. Billnier, 87 A.D.3d 1208, 1208, 929 N.Y.S.2d 778 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 802, 2011 WL 6223058 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People ex rel. Cicio v. Rock, 85 A.D.3d 1468, 1469, 926 N.Y.S.2d 685 [2011] ), a situation that prevails even when the claims are ostensibly jurisdictional ( see People ex rel. Burr v. Rock, 93 A.D.3d 977, 977, 939 N.Y.S.2d 730 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 806, 2012 WL 2094254 [2012],lv. dismissed19 N.Y.3d 1007, 951 N.Y.S.2d 704, 976 N.E.2d 231 [2012] ). Since petitioner has failed to present a sound reason for a departure from orderly procedure ( see People ex rel. Hemphill v. Rock, 95 A.D.3d 1579, 1579, 944 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2012] ), we perceive no basis to disturb the denial of his application.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.