Opinion
2012-11-15
In the Matter of Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Miguel Rodriguez, Coxsackie, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), for respondent.
Miguel Rodriguez, Coxsackie, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., MERCURE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and STEIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered March 13, 2012 in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's request for parole release.
In 1984, petitioner was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 15 years to life. In 2010, petitioner appeared before respondent seeking release to parole supervision. Following a hearing, respondent denied petitioner's request for parole release, and that determination was upheld upon administrative review. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent's determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals.
Contrary to petitioner's contentions, respondent properly considered the factors set forth in Executive Law § 259–i(1)(a) and was not constrained by 9 NYCRR 8002.3(b) in reaching its determination ( see Matter of Tatta v. Travis, 9 A.D.3d 763, 763, 780 N.Y.S.2d 238 [2004],lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 610, 786 N.Y.S.2d 813, 820 N.E.2d 292 [2004];Matter of Crews v. New York State Exec. Dept. Bd. of Parole Appeals Unit, 281 A.D.2d 672, 672, 720 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2001];Matter of Guerin v. New York State Div. of Parole, 276 A.D.2d 899, 901, 714 N.Y.S.2d 770 [2000] ). Respondent is not required to articulate every factor considered or give equal weight to each factor ( see Matter of Valentino v. Evans, 92 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 937 N.Y.S.2d 737 [2012];Matter of Maricevic v. Evans, 86 A.D.3d 879, 880, 927 N.Y.S.2d 471 [2011];Matter of Larrier v. New York State Bd. of Parole Appeals Unit, 283 A.D.2d 700, 700, 723 N.Y.S.2d 902 [2001] ). Its decision to emphasize the seriousness of petitioner's crime over his positive institutional record and participation in programming does not demonstrate that the determination was affected by “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (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] ), and we discern no basis upon which to disturb it ( see Matter of Valentino v. Evans, 92 A.D.3d at 1055, 937 N.Y.S.2d 737;Matter of Maricevic v. Evans, 86 A.D.3d at 880, 927 N.Y.S.2d 471).
Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been considered and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.