Opinion
91518
May 22, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 5, 2002 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Victor Woodard, Dannemora, appellant pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Lahtinen and, Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner was convicted in September 1993 of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and currently is serving concurrent prison sentences of 25 years to life. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Second Department (People v. Woodard, 221 A.D.2d 493, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 888), and petitioner's subsequent motions pursuant to CPL article 440 were denied. In June 1994, petitioner was convicted of the crime of possession of burglar's tools and was sentenced to a determinate term of one year, to run concurrently with the previously imposed terms of imprisonment. This conviction also was affirmed by the Second Department (People v. Woodard, 234 A.D.2d 613, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 989, cert denied 520 U.S. 1266).
In this application for a writ of habeas corpus (the most recent of 10 previous applications whereby he has sought similar relief), petitioner contends that the trial judge in the foregoing criminal proceedings erred by failing to grant (or, in petitioner's opinion, even to consider) his pretrial motions to suppress the identification testimony of police officers. Supreme Court dismissed the application, giving rise to this appeal.
We affirm. The issues now raised were available for review on petitioner's appeals from the judgments of conviction, as well as in the context of his previous motions pursuant to CPL article 440; hence, petitioner's most recent application for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed by Supreme Court (see People ex rel. Moore v. Miller, 244 A.D.2d 735, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 808). Even if petitioner were to succeed on these issues, he would not be entitled to immediate release, a fact that renders the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus inapposite (see People ex rel. Murray v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 827, 828, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 763). Finally, we find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a departure from the prescribed orderly procedures (see People ex rel. Carter v. Miller, 261 A.D.2d 674, 675).
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.