Matter of Spruils v Evans
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Spruils v Evans 2013 NY Slip Op 31115(U) March 19, 2013 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 4939-12 Judge: George B. Ceresia Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COWTY OF ALBANY In The Matter of the Application of JESSE SPRUILS, 92-A-2536 Petitioner, -against- ANDREA D. EVANS, CHAIRMAN OF TEE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent, For A Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Supreme Court Albany County Article 78 Term Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding RTI # 01-12-ST3986 Index NO, 4939-22 Appearmces: Jesse Spruils Inmate No. 92-A-2536 Self represented Petitioner FishkiIl Corredod Facility P.O. Box 1245 Beacon, New York 12508 Eric T.Schneiderman Attorney General State of New York Attorney For Respondent The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 (Brian J. O Donnell, Assistant Attorney CTeneral of Counsel) DECISION/ORDER/JUDGIVLENT George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice The petitioner, a inmate at Fishkill Correctional Facilify,has commencedthe instant n CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review a denial of parole. Petitioner argues that the Parole [* 2] Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the Iaw and facts and the Board failed to consider the facfors required by Executive Law Section 259-c(4). Respondent opposes the petition contending that all laws were properly followed; that the petition fails to state a cause of action. Petitioner was convicted by verdict in 1992 of the crime of Murder 2d and sentenced to a term of 20 years to life. The crime occurred in 1989 and petitioner was arrested i 1990. The n parole denial being challenged arises from petitioner's appearance before the Board on. September 13,201 1. In its decision denying Petitioner pmIe release, the Board stat& Parole is denied Hold 24 months; Next appearance 9-2013 \ Parole is denied. After a careful review of your record, your personal interview and due delibeattion, it is the determination of this panel that,if released at this time, there is a reasonable probability you would not live at liberty without violating the law, your release at this time is incompatible with the welfare and safety of the community, and would so deprecate the seriousness of your crime as to undermine respect for the law. This decision is based upon the following factors: You stand convicted of the folIowing serious offense of Murder in the 2"dDegree, i which during the course of a n conversation with the victim, you pulled out the gun and shot him causing his death. This was an escalation of your prior criminal behavior, which involved a loaded gun- These crimes show your tendency toward violence, which is of concern to this panel. You also have a recent Tier ILI ticket for disobeying a direct order. You need to maintain a clean disciplinary record. Consideration has been given to your program completion, however, your release at this time is denied. (Both Commissioners concur.) Petitioner, represented by counsel filed an administrativeappeal and perfectedthat appeal by filing his brief on January 19,2012. The Appeals Unit affirmed the Board's decision, mailing such decision to petitioner on August 13,2012. This article 78 petition is verified August 13, 2 [* 3] 2012 and stamped by the office of the Albany County Combined Courts on August 21,2012. The Order to Show cause was signed September IO, 2012. Petitioner asserts that the Parole Board actions were arbitrary, capriciotis, or irrational, i n that the decision is riot supported by the law and facts and that the decision of the board lacked consideration of the 20 1 1 amendments to Executive Law 259. The petition does not specify how the decision is not supported by the law and facts but simply incorporates by reference the issues raised in the administrative appeal brief. Parole Release decisions are discretionary and, if made pursuant to statutory requirements, not reviewable ( Matter of De La Cruz v Travis, 10 AD3d 789 [3d Dept., 20041; Matter of Collado v New York State Division of Parole, 287 ADZd 921 [3d Dept., 20011). Furthermore, only a "showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety" on the part of the Parole I Board has been found to necessitate judicial intervention ( s e Matter of S i h o n v Travis, 95 e NY2d 470,476[2000], quoting Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [I980]; see also Matter of Graziano v Evans, 90 AD3d 1347,1369 [3d Dept., 20111). In the absence ofthe above, there is IIQ basis upon which to disturb the discretionary determination made by the Parole Board ( see Matter of Perez v. New York State of Division of Parole, 294 AD28 726 [3rd Dept., 20021). The Court finds that the Parole Board considered the relevant criteria in making its decision and its determination was supported by the entire record, see Reed v Evans, 94 AD3d 1323 (3d Dept. 20 12). A review of the transcript of the paroIe interview' held September 13, 201 1, reveals that petitioner admitted to the shooting of the victim causing his death. The 1 Tianscript of parole interview, Respondent's exhibit E [* 4] petitioner admitted that he was selling clrugs and the shooting resulted from a turfwar with a rival drug dealer. Petitioner further admitted t other drug related crimes committed i o n Washington D.C. and Baltimore. In addition, petitioner acknowledged to being convkted of possession of a weapon in the Bronx. Discussion was hdd of petitioner s completion of vocational programs, certificates earned, his current job as a chaplain s clerk, his disciplinary record including the basis for the Tier III ticket, new and old letters of support, groups that would assist his plans for a job and living anangements upon release. Petitioner submitted a parole plan to the Board. Petitioner was &dd ample time in the hearing to make comments supportive of his release. He expressed remorse for the hrum caused the victim and the victim s family. Petitioner does not dispute that the Parole Board considered the required statutory factors to some extent; rather, his principal contention appears to be that the Parole Board gave excessive weight to the seriousness of his crimes of conviction and M c i e n t weight t the o other required factors However, the Parole Board is not required to give equal weight to each statutory factor ,(Matter of Wan Zhatzn. 10 AD3d at 829; Matter of Collado v New York State Div. of Pmle, 287 AD2d 921 [3d Dept ZOOl]). While petitioner has attained an impressive record of institutional accomplishments the Parole Board has the discretion to weigh these factors against the gravity of his crime of conviction (see Executive Law 8 2594 [former (I)], [2]). Discretionary release on pmIe shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct (id. at [2] [c]). The Written decision itself, while brief, was sufficiently detailed EO inform the petitioner of the reasons for the denid of pmle and it satisfied the requirements of Executive Law §259-i( see Matier of She-Pao, 11 NY3d 773 [2008]; -&Mer of Whitehead v. Russi, 201 AD2d 825 [3rd 4 [* 5] Dept., 19941; Matter of Green Y. New York State Division of Parole, 199 AD2d 677 [3rd Dept., 19931). It is proper and, in fact, required, that the Parole Board consider the Seriousness of the irZmate scrimes and their violent nature ( see Matter of Matos v New York State Board of Parole, 87 AD3d 1193 [3d Dept., 20111; Matter of Dudley v Travis, 227 AD2d 863, [3rd Dept., 1996). The Parole Board is not reqirirsd to enumerate or give equal weight t each factor that it o considered in detemining the inmate s application, or to expressly discuss each one { see Matter of MacKenzie v Evans, 95 AD3d 1613 [3d Dept., 20121; Matter of Matos v New York State Board of Parole, supra; Mattex of Young v New York Division of Parole, 74 AD3d 1681, 1631-1682 [3rd Dqt., 201 01;Matter of Wise v New York State Division of Parole, 54 AD3d 463 [3rd Dept., 20081). Nor must the parole board recite the precise statutory language set forth i the n sentence of Executive Law 5 2594 (2) (c) (A) ( see Matter of Silver0 v Dennison, 28 AD3d 859 /3rd Dept., 20061). In other words, [wlhere appropriate the Board may give considerable weight to, or place particular emphasis on, the cimmstances of the crimes for which a petitioner is incarcerated, as well as a petitioner scriminal history, together with the other statutory factors, i determining whether the individual will live and m a i n at liberty n without violating the Iaw, whether 4is or her release is not incompatibIe with the welfare of society, and whether release will deprecate the seriousness of [the] crime as to undermine respect for [the] law ( Matter of Dwio v New York State Division of Parole, 3 AD3d 816 [3rd Dept., 20041, quoting Executive Law $2594 [2] [c] [A], other citations omitted). The 201 1 legislation amended Executive Law Section 25% was not effective until after the date of petitioner s parole interview. The amendments would pIace greater emphasis on assessing the degree to which inmates have been rehabilitated, and the probabiIity that hey 5 [* 6] would h able to remain crime-he ifreleased. Executive Law 2 5 9 4 Subsection (4) now recites: [tlhe s a e board of parole shall establish writ~en tt procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to masure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members ofthe state board of pmle i determiningwhich n inmates may be released to parole supervision . This amendment was made effective six months afler its adoption on March 3 I, 201 1, that is, on October 1,201 1. The mendment does not apply to hearings held prior to its effective date, see Matter of Hamiliton v New York Sate Div. Of . -Parole, 36 Misc3d 440 (2012). I the second change, Executive 2594 (2) (c)was amendd to incorporate into one n section the eight factors which the Parole Board was to consider in making release determinations. This amendment was effective immediately upon its adoption on March 3 1,2011 and thus does apply to petitioner. Under the former law the factors to be considered were listed in different sections of the Executive Law. The amendment did not result i a substantive change i n n the Criteria which the Parole Board should consider i rendering its decision but placed the n factom in one section. As a result, the factorsfor the Board to consider itl determining whether Petitioner should be released to parole are the same whether under the former version of Executive Law 2594 or the current one. h his reply affidavit petitioner contends that his Inmate Status Report is erroneous. Petitioner contends that the report states that he has a outstanding warrant which was recalled. n Petitioner argues that the erroneous information entitles him to a new parole hearing before a different board. There is nothing i the record to show that the Board relied upon the f b t that the n 6 [* 7] Inmate Status R e p d recited there was a warrant outstanding for petitioner at the time of the interview. There is no record basis for concluding that the Parole Board believed that petitioner was subject to an outstanding warrant or that any such misapprehension played my part in the challenged determination. Viewed in the context of the overall administrative record, the m r in the b a t e Status Report teelied upon by petitioner falls short of demonsmthg that the Board s detemination.shouldbe amulted based upon a misapprehension of fact. The Court has reviewed and considered petitioner s remihing arguments and contentions and finds them to be without merit. The Court fmds that the determination was not made i violation of lawful procedure, is n not affect4 by an error of law, and is not irrational, arbitrary and capricious, or constitute an abuse of discretion. The Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed. The Court observes that certain records of a confidential nature relating to the petitioner were submitted to the Court as a part of the record. The Court, by sqmteorder, is sealing all rscords submitted for i camera review. n Accordingly it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the petition be and hereby is dismissed. This shall constitute the decision, order and judgment of the Court. The original decision/order/judgment is returned to the attorney for the respondents. All other papers are being delivered by the Court to the County Clerk ¬or filing. The signing of this decision/order/judgment and delivery of this decisiodordedjudgment does not constitute entry or filing under CPLR Rule 2220. Cornel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule Respondent s Exhibit C 7 [* 8] respecting i k g , entry and notice of entry. ENTER Dated: March /9,2013 Troy, New York George B. Ceresia, Jr, Supreme Court Justice Papers Considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Order To Show Cause dated September 10,2012 Verified Petition dated August 13,2012 Answer Dated November 6,2012 B a t i o n of Brian J. O DannelJ, Esq. dated November 6,2012 with exhibits Reply &davit by petitioner sworn to November 20,2012. 8 [* 9] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME.COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY I The Matter ofthe Application of n E S S E SPRUILS, 92-A-2536 Petitioner, ANDREA D.EVANS, CHAIRMANOF THE NEW YORK STATE DMSION OF PMOLE, Respondent, For A Judgment Pursuant to M c l e 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Supreme Court AIbany County Article 78 .Term Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding RJI # OI-12-ST3986 hdex NO. 4939-12 SEALING ORDER The following d o ~ m e n t having been filed by the respondent with the Court for in s campa p.e~jew connection with the above matter, mrneIy, respondent s Exhibit B, in PresentenceInvestigation Report, and respondent sExhibit D, ConfidentialPortion ofhmate Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED, that the foregoing designated doc&xnts, including all duplicates and copies thereof, shall be filed as sealed instruments and nut made available to any person or public or private agency unless by further order of the Court. ENTER Dated:- March / f ,2013 Troy, New York Supreme Court Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
