From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simpson v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1264 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-10-2015

In the Matter of Michael SIMPSON, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Covington & Burling, LLP, New York City (Colin P. Watson of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Brian D. Ginsberg of counsel), for respondent.


Covington & Burling, LLP, New York City (Colin P. Watson of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Brian D. Ginsberg of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.

Opinion

LAHTINEN, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with having unauthorized contact with an employee of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and making a third-party telephone call. At the tier III disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner pleaded guilty to these charges. The Hearing Officer, in turn, issued a guilty disposition and imposed a suspended penalty of three months in the special housing unit. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the determination is based by his knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty to the charges (see Matter of Pinkney v. Goord, 302 A.D.2d 820, 821, 754 N.Y.S.2d 599 [2003]; Matter of Shire v. Coombe, 240 A.D.2d 823, 659 N.Y.S.2d 818 [1997] ). Petitioner failed to challenge the validity of his guilty plea either at the disciplinary hearing or in his administrative appeal and his claims that the disciplinary rules at issue are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad have not been preserved for our review due to petitioner's failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Cornwall v. Fischer, 74 A.D.3d 1507, 1508, 904 N.Y.S.2d 520 [2010]; Matter of McCollum v. Fischer, 61 A.D.3d 1194, 1194, 876 N.Y.S.2d 766 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 2009 WL 2779303 [2009] ). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the determination of guilt.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

McCARTHY, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Simpson v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1264 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Simpson v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Michael SIMPSON, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 1264 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9149
19 N.Y.S.3d 916

Citing Cases

Pequero v. Annucci

In light of petitioner's pleas of guilty to both charges, admitting that he had asked an inmate to bring him…