People ex rel. Ragland v Bellnier
2011 NY Slip Op 03320 [83 AD3d 1351]
April 28, 2011
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011


The People of the State of New York ex rel. Kim Ragland,Appellant,
v
J.F. Bellnier, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility,Respondent.

[*1]Kim Ragland, Dannemora, appellant pro se.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 16, 2009 inFranklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in aproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 2003, petitioner was convicted of burglary in the second degree as well as possession ofburglar's tools and his conviction was later affirmed on appeal (People v Ragland, 36 AD3d 943[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 925 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1317 [2008]). In 2009,he brought the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus contending that his detention isillegal because the penal statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional. SupremeCourt denied the application without a hearing. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that habeas corpus relief is not available where a claim couldhave been raised on direct appeal or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion (see People ex rel. Joseph v Napoli, 75AD3d 669, 669 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 711 [2010], cert denied sub nom.Joseph v Griffin, 563 US —, 131 S Ct 2108 [2011]; People ex rel. Malik v State of New York, 58 AD3d 1042, 1043[2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 815 [2009]). Here, petitioner's constitutionalargument could have been raised in his direct appeal, but was not (People v Ragland, 36AD3d at 943-944). Likewise, it does not appear to have been the subject of a CPL article 440motion. Consequently, inasmuch as we perceive no extraordinary circumstances warranting adeparture from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Franza v Walsh, 76 [*2]AD3d 1160, 1160 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 716 [2010];People ex rel. Hayden v Senkowski, 306 AD2d 664, 665 [2003]), we find that SupremeCourt properly denied petitioner's application.

Spain, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed, 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.