Hamilton v. New York State Div. of Parole

In Hamilton v. New York State Div. of Parole, 119 AD3d 1268, 990 NYS2d 714 [2014] it was noted that the Third Department "has repeatedly held--both recently and historically--that, so long as the [Parole] Board considers the factors enumerated in the statute [Executive Law 259-i (2) (c) (A)] it is 'entitled . . . to place a greater emphasis on the gravity of [the] crime' (Matter of Montane v. Evans, 116 AD3d 197, 203, 981 NYS2d 866 [2014], lv granted 23 NY3d 903, 988 NYS2d 130, 11 NE3d 204 [2014]." (Id. at 1271.) After favorably citing nine Third Department cases decided between 1977 and 2014, the Hamilton court ended the string of cites as follows: "but see Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 AD2d 423, 434, 598 NYS2d 245 [1993], affd on other grounds 83 NY2d 788, 632 NE2d 1277, 610 NYS2d 954 [1994] [a First Department case holding, in conflict with our precedent, that the Board (of Parole) may not deny discretionary release based solely on the nature of the crime when the remaining statutory factors are considered only to be dismissed as not outweighing the seriousness of the crime]." (119 AD3d 1268, 1272, 990 NYS2d 714.) The Court of Appeals, however, did not address that aspect of the Appellate Division, First Department, decision in King holding that a parole denial determination must be based upon a showing of some aggravating circumstances beyond the inherent seriousness of the underlying crime. The Hamilton court continued as follows: "Particularly relevant here, we have held that, even when a petitioner's institutional behavior and accomplishments are 'exemplary,' the Board may place 'particular emphasis' on the violent nature or gravity of the crime in denying parole, as long as the relevant statutory factors are considered (Matter of Valderrama v. Travis, 19 AD3d at 905). In so holding, we explained that, despite [the Valderrama] petitioner's admirable educational and vocational accomplishments and positive prison disciplinary history, '[o]ur settled jurisprudence is that a parole determination made in accordance with the requirements of the statutory guidelines is not subject to further judicial review unless it is affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety' (id.). We emphasize that this Court [Appellate Division, Third Department] has repeatedly reached the same result, on the same basis, when reviewing denials of parole to petitioners whom we recognized as having exemplary records and as being compelling candidates for release." (119 AD3d 1268, 1272, 990 NYS2d 714.)