From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Herrera v. Schager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1982
88 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

June 21, 1982


In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burchell, J.), dated August 7, 1981, which denied the petition and dismissed the writ. Matter remitted to Special Term to hear and report on whether petitioner voluntarily waived his right to be present at the final parole revocation hearing; in the interim the appeal is held in abeyance. Petitioner received written notice of a final parole revocation hearing to be held on April 1, 1981, but denies that he waived his right to attend the hearing. The hearing officer erroneously held the hearing in the petitioner's absence based upon hearsay testimony of a parole officer that another parole officer notified the petitioner on April 1, that the hearing was to be held. A finding of a voluntary and intelligent waiver of a constitutional right to attend a final parole revocation hearing requires legal proof and may not be founded on hearsay evidence. ( People ex rel. Griffin v Walters, 83 A.D.2d 618.) A hearing is necessary to determine whether petitioner waived his right to attend his final parole revocation hearing. Mollen, P.J., Gulotta, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Herrera v. Schager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1982
88 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Herrera v. Schager

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jun 21, 1982

Citations

88 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Robertson v. Div. of Parole

Third, and most importantly, it changes the process from one in which the factual determination is made by a…

People v. Board of Parole

To the extent that Pena holds that there must be a residuum of legal evidence to support the hearing…