| People ex rel. Lainfiesta v Lape |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03151 [83 AD3d 1303] |
| April 21, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York ex rel. Shawn I. Lainfiesta,Appellant, v William R. Lape, as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, etal., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered March 13, 2008 inGreene County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceedingpursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
In 1995, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree for which he was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent prisonterms of 25 years to life and 5 to 15 years. His conviction was later affirmed on appeal(People v Lainfiesta, 257 AD2d 412 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 926 [1999]).Petitioner then brought an application for a writ habeas corpus in federal court asserting that hisconviction should be overturned because he was denied his constitutional right to counsel. TheSecond Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately denied the application upon finding the constitutionalerror to be harmless (Lainfiesta v Artuz, 253 F3d 151 [2001], cert denied 535 US1019 [2002]). Petitioner now brings the instant application for a writ of habeas corpuscontending that he is being wrongfully detained because the Second Circuit Court of Appealsincorrectly decided his application. Supreme Court denied the petition without a hearing andpetitioner now appeals.
It is well settled that habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claimsthat could have been or that were raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion (see People ex rel. Velez v Artus, 49AD3d 1109, 1110 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 716 [2008]; [*2]Peopleex rel. Funches v Walsh, 48 AD3d 849, 849 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 707[2008]). Here, petitioner's constitutional claim was raised on direct appeal where it was rejectedby the First Department (People v Lainfiesta, 257 AD2d at 413-415). It was also assertedin petitioner's federal habeas corpus application where it was not found to be a basis for grantingpetitioner the relief requested (Lainfiesta v Artuz, 253 F3d at 157-158). In view of theforegoing, habeas corpus relief is unavailable and we find no extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Jackson v Rock, 67 AD3d 1080 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]; Peopleex rel. Brown v Artus, 64 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709[2009]). Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed, without costs.