×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Suitable Residence Parole Condition Rational in NY
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a decision
to the New York State Division of Parole denying release to a convicted
child molester.
James Billups was convicted of raping his young daughter and sentenced to
a term of 5 to 15 years imprisonment. He had a conditional discharge date
of May 13, 2002.
As a condition of release, the New York State Division of Parole required
that Billups find a suitable residence. He did not and he was not granted
release.
Billups challenged the denial of parole. The Appellate Division of the
New York Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the [i]mposition of the
requirement of a suitable residence was rational under the circumstances as
petitioner has a history of violent conduct and perpetuated a heinous
sexual assault upon his own daughter. See: Billups v. New York State
Division of Parole, 18 AD.3d 1085, 795 NYS.2d 408 (NY SCT., App. Div., 3d
Dept., 2005).
to the New York State Division of Parole denying release to a convicted
child molester.
James Billups was convicted of raping his young daughter and sentenced to
a term of 5 to 15 years imprisonment. He had a conditional discharge date
of May 13, 2002.
As a condition of release, the New York State Division of Parole required
that Billups find a suitable residence. He did not and he was not granted
release.
Billups challenged the denial of parole. The Appellate Division of the
New York Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the [i]mposition of the
requirement of a suitable residence was rational under the circumstances as
petitioner has a history of violent conduct and perpetuated a heinous
sexual assault upon his own daughter. See: Billups v. New York State
Division of Parole, 18 AD.3d 1085, 795 NYS.2d 408 (NY SCT., App. Div., 3d
Dept., 2005).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Billups v. New York State Division of Parole
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 18 AD.3d 1085, 795 NYS.2d 408 (NY SCT., App. Div., |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
In the Matter of JAMES BILLUPS, Appellant, v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, CHAIR, et al., Respondents.
96725
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
18 A.D.3d 1085; 795 N.Y.S.2d 408; 2005 N.Y. App. Div.
May 26, 2005, Decided
May 26, 2005, Entered
NOTICE: [***1] THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.
COUNSEL: James Billips, Woodbourne, appellant Pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Carol Fischer of counsel), for respondents.
JUDGES: Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ. Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
OPINION: [*1085] [**409] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (La Buda, J.), entered September 8, 2004 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Petitioner is currently serving a 5 to 15-year prison term in connection with the rape of his young daughter. Petitioner's conditional release date was March 13, 2002. However, due to petitioner's failure to comply with the requirement of the Board of Parole that he find a suitable residence, he was not granted release at that time or thereafter. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This [***2] appeal ensued.
We affirm. The Board is authorized to impose special conditions [*1086] upon an inmate's release from prison (see Executive Law § 259-c [2]; § 259-g [1]; 9 NYCRR 8003.2 [l]; 8003.3). Imposition of the requirement of a suitable residence was rational under the circumstances as petitioner has a history of violent conduct and perpetrated a heinous sexual assault upon his own daughter (see e.g. Matter of Wright v Travis, 297 A.D.2d 842, 746 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2002]; People ex rel. Wilson v Keane, 267 A.D.2d 686, 700 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1999], appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 824, 734 N.E.2d 761, 712 N.Y.S.2d 449 [1999]). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
96725
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
18 A.D.3d 1085; 795 N.Y.S.2d 408; 2005 N.Y. App. Div.
May 26, 2005, Decided
May 26, 2005, Entered
NOTICE: [***1] THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.
COUNSEL: James Billips, Woodbourne, appellant Pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Carol Fischer of counsel), for respondents.
JUDGES: Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ. Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
OPINION: [*1085] [**409] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (La Buda, J.), entered September 8, 2004 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Petitioner is currently serving a 5 to 15-year prison term in connection with the rape of his young daughter. Petitioner's conditional release date was March 13, 2002. However, due to petitioner's failure to comply with the requirement of the Board of Parole that he find a suitable residence, he was not granted release at that time or thereafter. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This [***2] appeal ensued.
We affirm. The Board is authorized to impose special conditions [*1086] upon an inmate's release from prison (see Executive Law § 259-c [2]; § 259-g [1]; 9 NYCRR 8003.2 [l]; 8003.3). Imposition of the requirement of a suitable residence was rational under the circumstances as petitioner has a history of violent conduct and perpetrated a heinous sexual assault upon his own daughter (see e.g. Matter of Wright v Travis, 297 A.D.2d 842, 746 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2002]; People ex rel. Wilson v Keane, 267 A.D.2d 686, 700 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1999], appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 824, 734 N.E.2d 761, 712 N.Y.S.2d 449 [1999]). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.