People ex rel. Patterson
v.
Lacy

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third DepartmentOct 26, 2000
715 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 919276 A.D.2d 961

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Miller

    …The issues advanced by petitioner could have been raised on his direct appeal or in the context of a CPL…

  • People v. Duncan

    …MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that he is…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

October 26, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lahtinen, J.), entered January 3, 2000 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Dale Patterson, Collins, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Graffeo and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, having been convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, commenced this habeas corpus proceeding challenging the sufficiency of the indictment, as well as the evidence leading to the second degree murder convictions, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's application was denied by Supreme Court and we affirm.

Inasmuch as the issues advanced by petitioner could have been raised on his direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, we find that habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see, People ex rel. Gonzalez v. Bennett, 263 A.D.2d 565, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 753; People ex rel. Chavys v. Coombe, 235 A.D.2d 906, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 813). Furthermore, we perceive no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure and, accordingly, the application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.