| Matter of Fransua v Alexander |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 05847 [52 AD3d 1140] |
| June 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Pierre Fransua, Appellant, v George Alexander, as Chairof the Division of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Stein, J.), entered November 8, 2007 in AlbanyCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
While on parole for a prior conviction for robbery in the first degree, defendant dragged a womanto a wooded area where he raped and sodomized her. As a result, he was convicted of rape in the firstdegree and sodomy in the first degree and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 15 years to life.In October 2006, petitioner made his fifth appearance before the Board of Parole. The Board deniedhis request for parole release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner filed anadministrative appeal and then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder ofissue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.
We affirm. Our review of the record establishes that, in denying petitioner's parole release request,the Board took into account the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law § 259-i[2] [c] [A]), including the gravity of the present crimes, petitioner's extensive criminal history and hisinstitutional record and postrelease plans (see Matter of Villar v Alexander, 51 AD3d 1125[2008]). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, there is no [*2]indicationthat the Board's reference to oral sodomy, which was mentioned in the presentence investigation reportbut for which petitioner was not convicted, served as the sole basis for the Board's determination(see Matter of Williams v Travis, 11 AD3d 788, 790 [2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d813 [2005]). Given the foregoing, we find that the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationalitybordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quotingMatter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.