Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York Ex Rel. Prince Backman v. Jim Walsh

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


December 13, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. PRINCE BACKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JIM WALSH, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SULLIVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered March 13, 2012 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: October 29, 2012

Before: Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ.

In 1993, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal (People v Backman, 248 AD2d 164 [1998]). Thereafter, petitioner brought several CPL article 440 motions and commenced a proceeding seeking a writ of error coram nobis and a federal habeas corpus proceeding, all of which were denied. In 2010, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the indictment was defective and the trial evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application without a hearing, and petitioner now appeals.

"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" (People ex rel. Hemphill v Rock, 95 AD3d 1579, 1579 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People ex rel. Chapman v LaClair, 64 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]). The record discloses no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Collins v Billnier, 87 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 802 [2011]). Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb the denial of petitioner's application.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

20121213

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.