People ex rel. Reed v Tedford

2013 NY Slip Op 06413 [110 AD3d 1123]

October 3, 2013

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert I. Reed,Appellant, v Jeffery Tedford, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility,Respondent.

—[*1]Robert I. Reed, Wilton, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered August 31, 2012in Essex County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in aproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner, who is serving an aggregate prison sentence of 81/3 to 25years as a result of his 1993 conviction of two counts of rape in the first degree(People v Reed, 212 AD2d 962 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 739 [1995]),was later convicted in 1995 of two counts of promoting prison contraband in the firstdegree and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 2½ to 5 years, to runconsecutively to the sentences for the rape convictions. He has unsuccessfully challengedthe rape convictions on direct appeal and, among other things, various habeas corpusapplications (see e.g. People exrel. Reed v Travis, 12 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704[2005]). In June 2012, petitioner brought this application for a writ of habeas corpusarguing, among other things, that, with respect to the rape convictions, there were defectsor irregularities in the order of commitment and he was being detained for crimes he didnot commit. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application and he now appeals.

We affirm. Significantly, petitioner's "arguments were or could have been raisedupon [*2][his] direct appeal or CPL article 440 motionand, as no extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant a departure fromtraditional orderly procedure, habeas corpus relief is unavailable" (People ex rel. Rivas v Walsh,69 AD3d 1236 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 712 [2010]; see People ex rel. Williams vCunningham, 106 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2013]). Moreover, as previously noted bythe Fourth Department, even if there was some validity to petitioner's challenge to thecommitment order, he "would not be entitled to immediate release because there is avalid judgment of conviction underlying the commitment, and thus habeas corpus reliefis not appropriate" (People ex rel. Reed v Travis, 12 AD3d at 1103).Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the denial of his application.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.