Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyhearingleaseparolerespondent
leaseparolerespondent

Related Cases

Frye v. Settle, 168 F.Supp. 7
View Case »
State v. Deets, 187 Wis.2d 630, 523 N.W.2d 180
View Case »
Grant v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 680, 292 S.E.2d 348
View Case »
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4158, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1957, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2471, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140
View Case »
Hodgson v. State of Vt., 168 U.S. 262, 18 S.Ct. 80, 42 L.Ed. 461
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Confoy v. New York State Div. of Parole, 173 A.D.2d 1014, 569 N.Y.S.2d 846

Facts

The petitioner struck and killed a teenage pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol, leading to his conviction for criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident. He is currently serving two consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 ⅓ to 4 years at Downstate Correctional Facility. Upon applying for parole, the Division determined that he would not remain at liberty without further violations and that his release would be incompatible with societal welfare, denying his parole and scheduling a reconsideration hearing for 24 months later.

Petitioner struck and killed a teenage pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted for criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting.

Issue

The central issue is whether respondents' determination was made in accordance with Correction Law § 805.

The central issue is whether respondents' determination was made in accordance with Correction Law § 805.

Rule

Respondents determined that the petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society, supported by the seriousness of his offense, his prior history, and the District Attorney's opposition.

As noted, respondents determined that petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society.

Analysis

The court found that the Division's determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the interview with the petitioner and the nature of his offenses. The court noted that the Division acted within its discretion regarding the scheduling of the reconsideration hearing, emphasizing that participation in the temporary release program is a privilege, not a right.

The court found that the Division's determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the interview with the petitioner and the nature of his offenses.

Conclusion

The court confirmed the Division's determination and dismissed the petition, ruling that the decision was rational and supported by the law.

Determination confirmed, petition dismissed.

Who won?

The State Division of Parole prevailed in the case because the court found their determination to be supported by the record and made in accordance with the law.

The State Division of Parole prevailed in the case because the court found their determination to be supported by the record and made in accordance with the law.

You must be