| Matter of Sanchez v Division of Parole |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08261 [89 AD3d 1305] |
| November 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jorge A. Sanchez, Appellant, v Division ofParole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered March 3, 2011 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.
In 2008, petitioner was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree as well as drivingwhile intoxicated and was sentenced to 2 to 6 years in prison. In January 2010, he made his initialappearance before the Board of Parole seeking to be released to parole supervision. At the conclusionof the hearing, his request was denied and he was ordered held an additional 24 months. Petitionertook an administrative appeal and, when it was not decided within four months, he commenced thisCPLR article 78 proceeding. Following service of respondent's answer, Supreme Court dismissed thepetition and this appeal ensued.
Initially, it is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed solong as the Board complied with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259-i (see Matter of Dalton v Evans, 84 AD3d1664, 1664 [2011]; Matter of Smith vNew York State Div. of Parole, 81 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2011]). Upon reviewing the record,we find no merit to petitioner's claim that the Board failed to consider the proper statutory factors. Inaddition to the serious nature of petitioner's crimes, the Board also took into account the fact that thesewere his only criminal convictions, he had no prison disciplinary infractions, completed a number ofprograms and received a certificate of earned eligibility, and his postrelease plans included [*2]deportation to Mexico, his country of origin (see Matter of Cruz v New York State Div. ofParole, 39 AD3d 1060, 1062 [2007). The Board was not required to accord equal weight toeach of the statutory factors in making its decision (see Matter of Blasich v New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 AD3d 1029,1029-1030 [2008]; Matter of Mojica vTravis, 34 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2006]). Moreover, we find no error in the Board's referenceto petitioner's status as an illegal alien as he admitted that he gained entry to the United States fromMexico illegally. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the Board did not indicate that he had a prior criminalconviction as a result. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to beunavailing. In sum, the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering on impropriety' "(Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v NewYork State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), and we find no reason to disturb it.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.