MATTER OF KING v. New York State Div. of Parole
Cases that cite this one
93 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Robles v. Dennison (District Court, W.D. New York 2010)
- Graziano v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2012)
- Matter of Duffy v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Hamilton v. New York State Division (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Hamilton v. New York State Division (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Siao-Pao v. Dennison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- James S. Stoneking v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025)
- Matter of Applewhite v. New York State Bd. of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- MatterofHamiltonvNewYorkStateDivisionofParole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Graziano v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Mitchell v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Davis v. Thomas (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Manley v. Thomas (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Thomas v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT (2d Cir. 2012)
- Robles v. Dennison (2d Cir. 2011)
- Scott v. Dennison (District Court, W.D. New York 2010)
- Vaello v. Parole Board Division (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Phillips v. Dennison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Crimmins v. Dennison (New York Supreme Court 2006)
- Silmon v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Garcia v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Santos v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Walker v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Rentz v. Herbert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The issue in this case is whether petitioner was afforded a proper hearing prior to the denial of his application for release to parole supervision. His conviction, after a jury trial, stemmed from the shooting death of an off-duty police officer during a robbery at a fast food restaurant on May 25, 1970. He was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. In 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that his sentence was constitutionally invalid because the sentencing Judge had misunderstood the date he would become eligible for parole. Thus, he was resentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life, which qualified him for release to parole supervision on May 28, 1990.
Petitioner has thrice sought release to parole supervision. In this proceeding, he challenges the Board’s determination denying his most recent request for parole. Supreme Court directed the Parole Board to release him to parole supervision. The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order requiring his release and remanded the matter for a de nova hearing (190 AD2d 423). We affirm.
Executive Law article 12-B (§ 259 et seq.) contains the procedures governing parole. Section 259-i (2) (c) provides, in part, that discretionary release to parole supervision is not to be granted to an inmate merely as a reward for good behavior while in prison, but after considering whether "there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law.” That paragraph requires that the Parole Board consider certain guidelines, including the inmate’s institutional record, participation in a temporary release program, and release plans. In addition, where, as here, a court and not the Board of Parole has set the minimum period of imprisonment, the Parole Board must also consider the seriousness of the offense and the inmate’s prior criminal record (see, Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]).
*791 While a Parole Board need not expressly discuss each of these guidelines in its determination (see, Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD2d 412; People ex rel. Haderxhanji v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 368, 369), it must provide the inmate with a proper hearing in which only the relevant guidelines are considered (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 132). As the record before us indicates, that was not done here.
There is evidence in the record that petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing because one of the Commissioners considered factors outside the scope of the applicable statute, including penal philosophy, the historical treatment of individuals convicted of murder, the death penalty, life imprisonment without parole, and the consequences to society if those sentences are not in place. Consideration of such factors is not authorized by Executive Law § 259-i.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur; Judge Titone taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.