| People ex rel. Spaulding v Woods |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05219 [63 AD3d 1456] |
| June 25, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leighton Spaulding,Appellant, v R.K. Woods, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Pritzker, J.), entered April 16, 2009 inWashington County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in aproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Following his 1994 conviction of murder in the second degree, petitioner was sentenced to25 years to life in prison. His conviction was subsequently affirmed on appeal (People vSpaulding, 222 AD2d 312 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 942 [1996]). Thereafter,petitioner made numerous unsuccessful applications for habeas corpus relief and CPL article 440motions. The denial of petitioner's fourth application for habeas corpus relief was upheld by thisCourt on appeal (People ex rel.Spaulding v Napoli, 50 AD3d 1330, 1331 [2008]). The instant application is the fifthtime petitioner has sought habeas corpus relief. Supreme Court denied the application without ahearing and petitioner now appeals.
We affirm. Inasmuch as petitioner's claims could have been raised in his direct appeal orCPL article 440 motions, habeas corpus relief is unavailable, even though his claim pertaining tothe validity of the indictment is jurisdictional in nature (see People ex rel. Howard v Rock, 61 AD3d 1230, 1230 [2009];People ex rel. Moore v Connolly,56 AD3d 847, 848 [2008], lv denied [*2]12 NY3d701 [2009]). In any event, we addressed this jurisdictional claim in our prior decision denyingpetitioner's fourth application for habeas corpus relief (People ex rel. Spaulding vNapoli, 50 AD3d at 1331) and, therefore, collateral estoppel precludes petitioner fromrelitigating it (see Matter of LaRocco vGoord, 43 AD3d 500, 500 [2007]). As for the other claims raised by petitioner in theinstant proceeding, even if we were to find them to have merit, petitioner would not be entitledto immediate release from prison (seePeople ex rel. Funches v Walsh, 48 AD3d 849, 849 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d707 [2008]; People ex rel. Washingtonv Walsh, 43 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]).Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied petitioner's application.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.