Opinion
2014-07-17
In the Matter of Ronald RIVERS, Appellant, v. Andrea EVANS, as Chair of the Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.
Ronald Rivers, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.
Ronald Rivers, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered October 1, 2013 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Petitioner, who has several prior felony convictions, is currently serving a term of 20 years to life in prison upon his 1989 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. In 2012, he reappeared before the Board of Parole seeking to be released to parole supervision. The Board denied his request and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner took an administrative appeal and, when it was not decided within four months, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following service of respondents' answer, SupremeCourt dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
Parole release decisions are discretionary and will be upheld so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259–i ( see Matter of Campbell v. Evans, 106 A.D.3d 1363, 1363–1364, 965 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2013];Matter of Vaughn v. Evans, 98 A.D.3d 1158, 1159, 950 N.Y.S.2d 807 [2012] ). The record reveals that, in denying petitioner's request for parole release, the Board considered the relevant statutory factors including the serious nature of petitioner's crime, his extensive criminal history, lengthy prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments, postrelease plans and the sentencing minutes ( see Matter of Martinez v. Evans, 108 A.D.3d 815, 816, 968 N.Y.S.2d 258 [2013];Matter of Mentor v. New York State Div. of Parole, 87 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 930 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 803, 2012 WL 16695 [2012],cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2437, 182 L.Ed.2d 1068 [2012];see also Matter of Partee v. Evans, 117 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 984 N.Y.S.2d 894 [2014] ). The Board also considered the statutorily-mandated COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment instrument ( seeExecutive Law § 259–c [4]; Matter of Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, 114 A.D.3d 992, 993, 979 N.Y.S.2d 868 [2014] ). There is no support for petitioner's assertion that the Board relied on erroneous information regarding his criminal history, prison disciplinary record and past drug use in denying his request ( see e.g. Matter of Rivera v. New York State Div. of Parole, 95 A.D.3d 1586, 1587, 944 N.Y.S.2d 807 [2012] ). Likewise, there is nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair parole hearing ( see Matter of Smith v. New York State Div. of Parole, 64 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 882 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2009] ). Petitioner's remaining arguments are similarly unpersuasive. Given that the Board's decision does not exhibit “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” (Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476, 718 N.Y.S.2d 704, 741 N.E.2d 501 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 427 N.Y.S.2d 982, 405 N.E.2d 225 [1980] ), we find no reason to disturb it.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. PETERS, P.J., MCCARTHY, EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ., concur.