People ex rel. Burr v. Rock
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People ex rel. Williams v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- MARTINEZ, MANUEL v. GRAHAM, HAROLD D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Hemphill v. Rock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Hemphill v. Rock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Martinez v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Martinez v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Fulton v. LaValley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People ex rel. Fulton v. LaValley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered May 31, 2011 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.
Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 25 years to life as a result of his conviction of the crimes of murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree. His conviction was affirmed on appeal (People v Burr, 124 AD2d 5 [1987], affd 70 NY2d 354 [1987], cert denied 485 US 989 [1988]). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his arrest was unlawful. Supreme Court denied the application without a hearing and petitioner appeals.
We affirm. Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature (see People ex rel. Lainfiesta v Lape, 83 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; People ex rel. Chapman v LaClair, 64 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]). CPL 440.10 (1) (a) specifically authorizes a motion to vacate a judgment upon the ground that the court
Peters, J.E, Spain, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.