People ex rel. Velez v Artus
2008 NY Slip Op 02715 [49 AD3d 1109]
March 27, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


The People of the State of New York ex rel. Michael-Tony Velez,Appellant, v Dale Artus, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility,Respondent.

[*1]Michael-Tony Velez, Dannemora, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered June 15, 2007 inClinton County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceedingpursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 2003, petitioner was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to an aggregateprison term of 15 years to life upon his convictions of assault in the second degree (two counts),criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventhdegree. His convictions were affirmed upon appeal (People v Velez, 21 AD3d 262 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d760 [2005]) and his subsequent application for a federal writ of habeas corpus was denied(Velez v Ercole, 2006 WL 2742046, 2006 US Dist LEXIS 71100 [SD NY 2006]).Thereafter, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ ofhabeas corpus, alleging, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was legallyinsufficient to support the convictions. Supreme Court denied the application without a hearing,prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Petitioner's claims could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440motion and, thus, are not the proper subjects of a habeas corpus proceeding (see [*2]People ex rel. King v Bennett, 45 AD3d 1015, 1016[2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]; People ex rel. Washington v Walsh, 43 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2007],lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). To the extent that petitioner raises certain claims for thefirst time on appeal, they are not preserved for our review (see Matter of Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2007];People ex rel. Persing v Lacy, 276 AD2d 815, 816 [2000]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.