Stanley v. New York State Board
31 Misc. 3d 911
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Demitrious Stanley, age 31, imprisoned for murder in the second degree as a juvenile offender, with a nine-years-to-life sentence imposed in 1996.
- Offense occurred in 1995 when Stanley, age 15, shot and killed a 15-year-old outside a Manhattan apartment.
- Petitioner became parole-eligible in February 2004 and has appeared before the Board five times (Dec 2003, Dec 2005, Dec 2006, Dec 2007, Oct 2009).
- The October 2009 hearing denied parole, with the Board focusing largely on the offense and noting a recent Tier II disciplinary report. The reappearance report indicated no recent tickets since 1/07.
- Petitioner had served 176 months by the 2009 hearing, while juvenile-offender guidelines projected a 36–60 month range; however, his minimum term of 108 months precluded release.
- The court later remanded with an order to conduct a new hearing consistent with Executive Law § 259-i and 9 NYCRR 8001.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did repeated denials effectively resentence Stanley as an adult? | Stanley argues Board overly discounts rehabilitation and converts juvenile sentence to adult sentence. | Board may weigh factors variably and deny parole for protection of society; no automatic entitlement. | No automatic resentencing; not automatic error, but court reviews for arbitrariness. |
| Was the denial arbitrary and irrational by focusing on the crime's nature? | Board focused almost exclusively on crime type, failing to balance statutory factors. | Board appropriately considers total factors; denial reasonable given circumstances. | Board acted irrationally and arbitrarily by overemphasizing the crime. |
| Did failure to apply juvenile offender guidelines render the decision unlawful? | Board neglected its own juvenile offender parole release decision-making guidelines. | Guidelines may be used; not required to reference each factor in decision. | Failure to refer to guidelines support reversal; requires remand for new hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470 (2000) (parole decisions reviewed for irrationality and impropriety)
- Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423 (2d Dept 1993) (parole discretion and factor weighting)
- Matter of Rios v New York State Div. of Parole, 15 Misc 3d 1107[A] (Sup Ct, Kings County 2007) (parole review and discretion guidance)
- Matter of Evans v Dennison, 13 Misc 3d 1236[A] (Sup Ct, Westchester County 2006) (similar juvenile offender parole denial context)
- Matter of Gelsomino v New York State Bd. of Parole, 82 A.D.3d 1097 (2d Dept 2011) (need for fair consideration of statutory factors)
- Matter of Huntley v Evans, 77 A.D.3d 945 (2d Dept 2010) (parole decision factors and weighting)
- Matter of Miller v New York State Div. of Parole, 72 A.D.3d 690 (2d Dept 2010) (parole guideline application and discretion)
- Matter of Mitchell v New York State Div. of Parole, 58 A.D.3d 742 (2d Dept 2009) (parole decision framework and factor consideration)