Opinion
June 16, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Murad, J. — Habeas Corpus.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his final parole revocation hearing. Such relief is not available because petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from custody if there were merit to his contention that his counsel's advice to plead guilty to a parole violation constituted ineffective assistance ( see, People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901, 903; People ex rel. Davila v. Herbert, 258 A.D.2d 921; People ex rel. Kinzer v. Williams, 256 A.D.2d 1240).
We further reject the contention of petitioner that the retroactive application of the 1997 amendments to 9 NYCRR 8005.20 (c) violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws ( see, People ex rel. Alsaifullah v. New York State Div. of Parole, 269 A.D.2d 550 [decided Feb. 22, 2000]; People ex rel. Tyler v. Travis, 269 A.D.2d 636 [decided Feb. 3, 2000]; People ex rel. Johnson v. Russi, 258 A.D.2d 346, 347, appeal dismissed and lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 945).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.