| People ex rel. Tumminia v Griffin |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04281 [118 AD3d 1174] |
| June 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York ex rel. RobertTumminia, Appellant, v Patrick Griffin, as Superintendent of Sullivan CorrectionalFacility, Respondent. |
Sheila E. Shea, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Albany (Shannon Stockwell ofcounsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), enteredMarch 7, 2012 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In 1997, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of rape in the first degree stemmingfrom allegations that, less than 90 days after completing parole supervision for a priorfelony conviction, he raped and sodomized a 28-year-old woman at knife point inBroome County. As a result, petitioner was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Thereafter,as petitioner neared his February 2011 conditional release date, the Department ofCorrectional Services (now known as the Department of Corrections and CommunitySupervision) notified the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Mental Health ofpetitioner's anticipated release from prison (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.05 [b]), and petitioner, in turn, was referred to an Office of MentalHealth case review team for evaluation (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.05 [e]). Following a psychiatric evaluation, petitioner was found to bea sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to the Sex Offender Managementand Treatment Act (see Mental Hygiene Law art 10 [eff Apr. 13, [*2]2007] [hereinafter SOMTA]), and petitioner and theAttorney General were notified accordingly (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.05 [g]). The Attorney General thereafter filed a SOMTA petition inSullivan County—where petitioner was confined—seeking, among otherthings, a finding that there was probable cause to believe that petitioner was a sexoffender requiring civil management. Upon petitioner's request, the SOMTA proceedingwas transferred to Broome County (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.06 [b]).
Following a hearing, Supreme Court (Tait, J.) found probable cause to believe thatpetitioner was a sex offender requiring civil management, i.e., "a detained sex offenderwho suffers from a mental abnormality" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [q])and ordered that petitioner be retained in custody pending trial.[FN1]After petitioner unsuccessfully soughthabeas corpus relief in the context of the underlying SOMTA proceeding, he commencedthis habeas corpus proceeding in October 2011 claiming that his confinement pursuant toSOMTA was unlawful. Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.) dismissed petitioner's applicationwithout a hearing, prompting this appeal.[FN2]
Petitioner, as so limited by his brief, contends that he is entitled to specificperformance of the underlying plea agreement, i.e., to be released upon the completion ofhis sentence without being subject to a SOMTA proceeding, and that application ofSOMTA to his 1997 conviction retroactively impairs his contract rights under the pleaagreement and operates to deprive him of due process. The merits of petitioner'sarguments, however, need not detain us at this juncture. It is well settled that "habeascorpus relief does not lie where there are other procedures available for review of thechallenged error" (People ex rel. Quartararo v Demskie, 238 AD2d 792, 793-794[1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]; see People ex rel. Richards v Yelich, 87 AD3d 764, 765[2011], appeal dismissed and lv denied 17 NY3d 922 [2011]; People ex rel.Minter v Eisenschmidt, 294 AD2d 939, 939-940 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d609 [2002]; People ex rel. Charles v DeAngelo, 263 AD2d 796, 797 [1999];People ex rel. DeFlumer v Strack, 212 AD2d 555, 555 [1995], lvdismissed 85 NY2d 966 [1995]; cf. People ex rel. Morse v Berbary, 92 AD3d 1229, 1230[2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]). Here, as petitioner candidlyacknowledges in his reply brief, there are other procedural avenues available to pursuethe very claims he now raises—most notably, a direct appeal from any final orderentered in the underlying SOMTA proceeding (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.13 [b]). Although petitioner plainly regards the instant habeas corpusproceeding as the most expeditious vehicle for challenging SOMTA's application to hisconviction, we discern no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedures (seePeople ex rel. Richards v Yelich, 87 AD3d at 765). Accordingly, Supreme Courtproperly dismissed petitioner's application.
Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote 1:Petitioner elected toremain at the Sullivan County Correctional Facility pending completion of the SOMTAproceeding.
Footnote 2:According torespondent, the SOMTA proceeding went to trial in June 2013, and a jury thereafterfound that petitioner was a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality.The dispositional phase of that proceeding apparently has yet to be conducted.