Preview
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SULLIVAN
----------------------- ------------------- X
In the Matter of the Application of :
CHAD A. CAMPBELL, : Index # E2021-855
Petitioner,
For a judgrñéñt pursuañt to Article 78 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules, :
-against-
TINA M. STANFORD, Chairwoman of the New
York State Board of Parole,
Respondents. :
-------------- ----------------- X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
Elyse D. Echtman
Rochelle F. Swartz
Kristin Schwam
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Tel: (212) 506-5000
rswartz@orrick.com
Sydney Hargrove
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street,N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 339-8400
Janet E. Sabel
Lawrence T. Hausman
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
Criminal Appeals Bureau
199 Water Street, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10038
Tel: (646) 689-5537
Attorneys for Petitioner
1 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OFCONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .... .... 1
......
JURISDICTION ........ ......4
PROCEDURAL HISTORY....... .................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS............. 5
A. The Underlying Crime............... ---... 6
B. Mr. Campbell's Remorse and Growth as an Adult 10
C. Productive Activity While Incarcerated........... ....................12
"Low"
D. Clean Disciplinary Record and Risk Assessment .........13
E. Family Support and Reentry Plan 14
F. The Board's 2020 Decision Denying Parole ............ .. ........15
ARGUMENT 15
I. THE DECISION WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION........... ...................16
A. The Decision was Intended to Moot the Article 78 Appeal ............................16
B. The Decision was Meant to Correct Glaring Problems in the 2019 Decision 17
C. The Hostility Displayed by Commissioner Segarra Supports the Conclusion that
Denial was a Foregone Conclusion............................... ...............................18
D. The Decision isBased on Politics,Not Reason.............................................
....18
II. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS CONCLUSORY
AND EVADES JUDICIAL REVIEW............................. ... ......... 21
III. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS PREDICATED
UPON TWO FACTUALLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS....... 23
IV. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION
THAT MR. CAMPBELL IS NOT REHABILITATED IS CONTRADICTED BY THE
FACTS.............................................................................
.............................................25
V. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO
ABIDE BY ITS STATUTORY MANDATE........................... 25
A. The Board Improperly Weighed a Non-Statutory Factor That Counsels in Favor
of Release as A Factor Against Release ....... ..........................................26
Opposition,"
B. The Decision Relies on "Community a Non-Statutory Factor .....28
Opposition,"
C. The Decision Relies On "Official A Non-Statutory Factor........ 1
VI. THE DECISION FAILS TO EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM COMPAS 2
VII. THE DECISION IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE
UNDERLYING OFFENSE 35
VIII. THE DECISION VIOLATES MR. CAMPBELL'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS..............37
A. Due Process-Secured Sixth Amendment Protecti0ñs Apply to Parole Proceedings........38
i
2 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
B. The Decision Relies on Facts Not Found by A Jury.................... ...............40
C. The Decision Increases Mr. Campbell's Mandatory Minimum Sentence... ....42
D. The Decision Increases Mr. Campbell's Mandatory Maximum Sentence . .....43
IX. THE DECISION VIOLATES MR. CAMPBELL'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ..........45
A. The Decision Violates Mr. Campbell's Eighth Amendment Rights Because the
Board Failed to Appropriately Consider Mr. Campbell's Youth at the Time of the
Offense................................................. ... ...........................45
B. The Decision Violates Mr. Campbell's Eighth Amendment Rights Because the
Decision Fails to Afford Mr. Campbell a Meaningful Opportunity for Release.............47
X. THE PETITION IS NOT MOOT...................... 49
A. This Appeal Fits Squarely Within a Recognized Exception to the
Mootness Doctrine. 50
B. The March 2021 Decision Repeats the Same Errors as the Decision
This Petition 53
Underlying
XI. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER RELEASE.... ......... ... 53
A. Basic Principles of Statutory Interpretation Demenstrate That Previous Decisions
on This Issue Are Erroneous.................... 54
1. Plain meaning, context, and legislative history demonstrate the breadth
of this Court's authority 54
2. Caselaw concerning the Article 78 court's authority to order release is
erroneous, such that this Court may decline to follow precedent 57
B. The 2011 Parole Revisions Instilled a Liberty Interest in Parole Procedure ...................62
C. The Ability of Courts to Convert Habeas Corpus Proceedings into Article 78
Petitions is Indicative of Judicial Authority to Order Release .............................62
D. The Rule of Lenity Supports This Court's Authority to Order Release ........... 63
E. The Board of Parole Lacks Any Special Expertise That Might Undermine the
Article 78 Court's Authority to Overrule Board Decisions .............................
....65
1. Politics, not expertise, ünderlies the Board of Parole ......................65
2. Parole disputes originate in the court system, making judges appropriate
arbiters of disputed parole determinations..................... 66
F. Interpreting Article 78 as Curtailing Judicial Authority to Order Release Renders
the Statute Unconstitutional.............. .................. 66
G. Logic and Public Policy Considerations Mandate the Conclusion that Article 78
Judges Have Authority to Order Parole Release 66
CONCLUSION 67
ii
3 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Alleyne v. United States,
570 U.S. 99 (2013) 38, 39, 40, 43
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998) 39
Altria Grp., Inc.v. Good,
555 U.S. 70 (2008) 16, 67
Matter of Applewhite,
167 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) 27, 28, 29
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000)... .......
............................................ ................passim
Bailey v. McDougall,
66 Misc.2d 161 (Sup. Ct. 1970), aff'd,36 A.D.2d 903 (2d Dep't 1971) 58
Benson v. Stanford,
No. 978/2019, Decision, Order, and Judgment (Dutchess Cty. Apr. 27, 2020) 20, 35
Bing v. Thunig,
2 N.Y.2d 656 (1957) 60
Birdsong v. Nurture, Inc.,
275 F. Supp. 3d 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) 16, 67
Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 496 (2004) passim
Bottom v. Stanford,
No. E2020-745 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. Aug 10, 2020) 24
Bresnick v. Saypol,
57 N.Y.S.2d 904 (Sup. Ct. 1945), modified on other grounds, 270 A.D. 837 (1st
Dep't 1946.................................................... ............. ................................
57, 58
Brown v. Commissioner of N.Y S. Dep't of Correctional Serv.,
70 A.D.2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)............ .. ................... 29
Bruetsch v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision,
No. 0230-14, 2014 WL 1910238 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. May 11, 2014)............. .....21,22
Brunner v. Russi,
182 A.D.2d 1136 (4th Dep't 1992) 61
iii
4 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Campbell v. Stanford, Appellate Division, Second Department Docket No. 2017-07216,
Dutchess County Supreme Co(ut Index No. 50465/17 (Jan. 8, 2020) 3,7,48
Campbell v. Stanford,
Index No. E2020-1001 (Sullivan Cty. Sup. Ct. 2020) passim
Chevron, U.SA., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc.,
467 U,S, 837 (1984) 64
Matter of Coaxum v. New York State Bd, of Parole,
827 N, Y,S,2d 489 (Sup, Ct, Bronx Cty, 2006) 25
Coleman v, New York State Dep't of Corr, Ck Cmty, Supervision
157 A.D.3d 672 (2d Dep't 2018) 24, 33
Comfort v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
No. 1445/2018 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Dec. 21, 2018) 33
Matter of Comfort v. New York State Div. of Parole,
68 A.D.3d 1295 (3d Dep't 2009) 15
Dinsio v. Supreme Court,
12S A,D,3d 1313 (4th Dep't 2015) ......„„„„„„„„„„............„„„„„„58
Donawitz v, Danek,
42 N, Y,2d 138 (1977) 59
People ex rel, Donohoe v, Montanye,
35 N.Y.2d 221 (1974) 53
Matter of Duffy v. New York State Dep 'tof Corr. 4 Cc.-..=.;.=-=..'.-:?ySupervision,
132 A.D.3d 1207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) .......... 27, 29
Dunne v. Harnett,
92 Misc.2d 48 (Sup. Ct. 1977), aff'd, 59 A.D.2d 1065 (1st Dep't 1977) 57
Fndresz v. Friedberg,
24 N, Y,2d 478 (1969) 60
Esquivel-quintana v, Lynch,
810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016) 64
Ferrante v. Stanford,
172 A.D.3d 3 1 (2d Dep't 2019) 36
Friedgood v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
22 A.D.3d 950 (3d Dep't 2005)........... .54
1V
5 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Fuller v. Evans,
586 Fed. App'x 825 (2d Cir. 2014) 62
Gamble v. United States,
139 S.Ct. 1960 (2019) 58, 59
People ex rel. Ganci v. Henderson,
54 A.D.2d 609 (4th Dep't 1976) 63
Girard v. Glens Falls,
173 A.D.2d 113 (3rd Dep't 1991) 61
Gonmler v.Annucci,
136 A.D.3d 909 (2d Dep't 2016) ........... 58
Gonzalez v.Annucci,
32 N.Y.3d 461 (2018)........................... ..... ............
51, 53
Graham v. Florida,
560 U.S. 48 (2010) 46, 49
Grifenhagen v. Ordway,
218 N.Y. 451 (1916) 60
Gundy v. United States,
139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019) 56
Hartje v. Coughlin,
70 N.Y.2d 866 (1987) .................. ..... . ................................61
Hawkins v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supsivision,
30 N.Y.S.3d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) passim
People ex rel. Herbert v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
97 A.D.2d 128 (1stDep't 1983) 62
Hill v. New York State Bd. ofParole,
No. 100121/2020, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9462 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 23, 2020)...... 50, 51, 52, 54
Hopps v. N.Y State Bd. ofParole,
Decision and Order Index No. 2553/18 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. 2018) 31, 32
Howland v. Henderson,
54 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976) 29
Huntley v. Evans,
910 N.Y.S.2d 112 (2d Dep't 2010) 37
6 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Jennings v. Stanford,
No. 2020-51294, Decisiu11 & Order (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Sept. 17, 2020) 23, 24, 33, 37
Johnson v. New York State Bd of Parole,
65 A.D.3d 838 (4th Dep't 2009) 16, 37
Jones v. Mississippi,
593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3, 44, 49
Jones v. United States,
526 U.S. 227 (1999) 37
Kimmel v. State,
29 N.Y.3d 386 (2017)........... 57
Kindler v. City of New York,
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160253 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2019) 63
King v. Landreman,
No. 19-CV-338, Dkt. No. 6 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2019) 38
King v. New York State Div. of Parole,
190 A.D.2d 423 (Ist Dep't 1993), aff'd, 83 N.Y.2d 788 (1994).............. .......
29, 31, 60
King v. New York State Div. of Parole,
83 N.Y.2d 788 (1994) 59, 60
Kirklin v. United States,
883 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2018) 38
Lebron v.Alexander,
68 A.D.3d 1476 (3d Dep't 2009)...... .......... 53
Leocal v.Ashcroft,
543 U.S. 1 (2004) 64
Licitra v. Coughlin,
93 A.D.2d 349 (3rd Dep't 1983) 60
Linares v. Annucci,
710 Fed. App'x 467 (2d Cir. 2017) 63
Lovell v. N.Y State Div. of Parole,
40 A.D.3d 1166 (3d Dep't 2007) 50, 51, 53
Maier v. Coughlin,
193 A.D.2d 1015 (3d Dep't 1993) 61
vi
7 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Marino v. Travis,
13 A.D. 453 (2d Dep't 2004) 51, 52, 53
Mayfield v. Evans,
938 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) 21
McLaurin v. N.Y S. Bd. ofParole,
27 A.D.3d 565 (2d Dep't 2006) 50, 51, 52, 53
In re Melinda D.,
31 A.D.3d 24 (2d Dep't 2006) 5 1
People ex rel. Merced v. Warden, Otis Bantum Correctional Ctr.,
No. 250538/07, 2008 WL 211530019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2008) 63
Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York,
No. 2010-06556, 2011 WL 6825539 (2d Dep't 2011)..... ....... ........................ 55
Miller v. Alabama,
132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ..... ................ .........
3, 44, 46, 49
Miranda y. New York State Bd. of Parole,
No. 150995/2020, Decision & Order (Sup. Ct. New York Cty. Oct. 13, 2020)........ 37, 50
Mitthauer v. Patterson,
8 N.Y.2d 37 (1960) ................................................................
............. .................56
Montgomery v.Louisiana,
136 S Ct. 718 (2016) passim
Morris v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision,
40 Misc. 3d 226 (Sup. Ct. Columbia Cty. 2013) 16, 37
Morris v. New York State Department of Corrections,
963 N.Y.S.2d 852 (Sup. Ct. Columbia Cty. 2013) 22
Mullaney v. Wilbur,
421 U.S. 684 (1975) 43
Matter ofNewton v. Dennison,
47 A.D.3d 538 (1st Dep't 2008) 59
Matter ofPantelidis v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals,
43 A.D.3d 314 (1stDep't 2007), affd, 10 N.Y.3d 846 (2008) 62, 65
Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ.,
34 N.Y.2d 222 (1994) 15
vii
8 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
People v. Bing,
76 N.Y.2d 331 (1990) .....................................
___............. 59
People v. Brodie,
37 N.Y. 2d 100 (N.Y. 1975) 45
People v. Hogan,
No. 18, 2016 WL 633920 (2d Dep't Feb. 18, 2016)......... 59
People v. Prindle,
29 N.Y.3d 463 (N.Y. 2017) 38
People v. Turner,
5 N.Y.3d 476 (2005) 59
People ex rel. Perdue v. Jablonsky,
174 Misc.2d 604 (Sup. Ct. 1997) ... .............................................................58
Piersma on behalf of Majors v. Henderson,
44 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1978).....................................................................................................63
Platt v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
47 Misc. 3d 1059 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. 2015) 37
Police Benev. Ass'n of State Trooper v. Vacco,
253 A.D.2d 920 (3rd Dep't 1998) 61
Policemen's Benev. Ass'n Westchester County, Inc. v. Board Trustees Village
of of of of
Croton-on-Hudson,
21 A.D.2d 693 (2d Dep't 1964)..... ............... .... 56
Quartararo v. New York State Div. of Parole,
224 A.D.2d 266 (Ist Dep't 1996) 59
Rabeñbaucr v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision,
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24347 (Sup. Ct.Sullivan Cty. Nov 12, 2014) .........................33
Rabenbauer v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision,
995 N.Y.S.2d 490 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. 2014) 21
Rakaric v. Croation Cultural Club,
76 A.D.2d 619 (2d Dep't 1980) 60
Ramirez v. Stanford,
No. 1928/2016 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Feb. 7, 2017) 30
Ring v. Arizona,
536 U.S. 584 (2002) 44
viii
9 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Rivera v. Stanford,
No. 50638/17, 2019 WL 2030503 (2d Dep't 2019)..................... 24, 45, 52
Robinson v. Stanford,
No. 2392/2018 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Mar. 13, 2019) 33
Rodriguez v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
No. 8670/2015, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5111 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Feb. 25, 2016)............... 22
People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Wolfson,
48 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1979) 63
Rossakis v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
146 A.D.3d 22 (1st Dep't 2016) 59
Rossakis v. New York State Bd. of Parole,
196 A.D.3d 22 (1st Dep't 2016) 36
Matter of Simonson v. Cahn,
27 N.Y.2d 1 (1970) 59, 60
Solem v. Helm,
463 U.S. 277 (1983) 68
People ex rel. South v. Hammock,
80 A.D.2d 947 (3d Dep't 1981)...... .........................................
63
Southern Union Co. v. U.S.,
567 U.S. 343 (2012)........ .......... .... ...-.......
39,
Speed v. Regan,
50 A.D.2d 1100 (4th Dep't 1975) 60
People ex rel. Spencer v. Goord,
179 Misc. 2d 85 (Sup. Ct. 1998) 63
Standley v. New York State Div. ofParole,
34 A.D.3d 1169 (3d Dep't 2006) 51, 53
State v. Cities Service Co.,
No. 64300, 1992 WL 34289 (3d Dep't, Feb. 20, 1992) ...................... .... .....-....
55
Thompson v. Oklahoma,
487 U.S. 815 (1988) 45
Town of Aurora v. Village of East Aurora,
32 N.Y.3d 366 (2018).... ....................... ... ....................... .......
55
ix
10 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
U S. v. Scully,
108 F. Supp. 3d 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)............. .......64
U S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.,
504 U.S. 505 (1992) 64
United States v. Gaudin,
515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995) ...... ..................... ..................39
United States v. Haymond,
139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019) ....... .. 38, 39, 40
United States v. Ventura,
742 Fed. App'x. 575 (2d. Cir. 2018) 38
Voti v. Stanford,
No. 50485/2020 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. May 13, 2020) 32
Matter of West v.New York State Bd. of Parole,
No. 3069-13, 2013 WL 5657701 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. Sept. 24, 2013) 21, 22
Westchester County Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Mengel,
266 A.D. 151 (2d Dep't 1943), aff'd, 292 N.Y. 121 (1944) ..........................55
People ex rel. Yates v. Walters,
111 A.D.2d 839 (2d Dep't 1985) ......................................
...........63
Statutes
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.2 .....................................
----............... . .............................52
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.2(a) 32, 35
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.3 21
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.1 5
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.3(a)(1) 15
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.4(c) 5
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 98002.2(a) 33
Civil Practice Act 57
C.P.L.R. Article 78 passim
C.P.L.R. § 506................................. ...................................... 4
11 of 84
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
C.P.L.R. § 5011 56
C.P.L.R. § 5 104 56
C.P.L.R. § 7801...... ... ......... ................... . ......
4
C.P.L.R. § 7803 56
C.P.L.R. § 7806 56, 58
Exec. L. § 259-i passim
Exec. L. § 259-c (McKinney 2010) ...................... .. 62
Exec. L. § 259-c (McKinney 2012)... .......... 62
Exec. L. § 259(c)(4) 34
Social Services Law § 374-a .............51
U.S. CONST. 64, 67
U.S. CONST. amend V 55
U.S. CONST. amend VI passim
U.S. CONST. amend VIII passim
U.S. CONST. amend XIV
Preview
FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SULLIVAN ----------------------- ------------------- X In the Matter of the Application of : CHAD A. CAMPBELL, : Index # E2021-855 Petitioner, For a judgrñéñt pursuañt to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, : -against- TINA M. STANFORD, Chairwoman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondents. : -------------- ----------------- X MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITION Elyse D. Echtman Rochelle F. Swartz Kristin Schwam ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 506-5000 rswartz@orrick.com Sydney Hargrove ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Columbia Center 1152 15th Street,N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 339-8400 Janet E. Sabel Lawrence T. Hausman THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Criminal Appeals Bureau 199 Water Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10038 Tel: (646) 689-5537 Attorneys for Petitioner 1 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OFCONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .... .... 1 ...... JURISDICTION ........ ......4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY....... .................. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS............. 5 A. The Underlying Crime............... ---... 6 B. Mr. Campbell's Remorse and Growth as an Adult 10 C. Productive Activity While Incarcerated........... ....................12 "Low" D. Clean Disciplinary Record and Risk Assessment .........13 E. Family Support and Reentry Plan 14 F. The Board's 2020 Decision Denying Parole ............ .. ........15 ARGUMENT 15 I. THE DECISION WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION........... ...................16 A. The Decision was Intended to Moot the Article 78 Appeal ............................16 B. The Decision was Meant to Correct Glaring Problems in the 2019 Decision 17 C. The Hostility Displayed by Commissioner Segarra Supports the Conclusion that Denial was a Foregone Conclusion............................... ...............................18 D. The Decision isBased on Politics,Not Reason............................................. ....18 II. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS CONCLUSORY AND EVADES JUDICIAL REVIEW............................. ... ......... 21 III. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS PREDICATED UPON TWO FACTUALLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS....... 23 IV. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION THAT MR. CAMPBELL IS NOT REHABILITATED IS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS............................................................................. .............................................25 V. THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO ABIDE BY ITS STATUTORY MANDATE........................... 25 A. The Board Improperly Weighed a Non-Statutory Factor That Counsels in Favor of Release as A Factor Against Release ....... ..........................................26 Opposition," B. The Decision Relies on "Community a Non-Statutory Factor .....28 Opposition," C. The Decision Relies On "Official A Non-Statutory Factor........ 1 VI. THE DECISION FAILS TO EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM COMPAS 2 VII. THE DECISION IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE 35 VIII. THE DECISION VIOLATES MR. CAMPBELL'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS..............37 A. Due Process-Secured Sixth Amendment Protecti0ñs Apply to Parole Proceedings........38 i 2 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page B. The Decision Relies on Facts Not Found by A Jury.................... ...............40 C. The Decision Increases Mr. Campbell's Mandatory Minimum Sentence... ....42 D. The Decision Increases Mr. Campbell's Mandatory Maximum Sentence . .....43 IX. THE DECISION VIOLATES MR. CAMPBELL'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ..........45 A. The Decision Violates Mr. Campbell's Eighth Amendment Rights Because the Board Failed to Appropriately Consider Mr. Campbell's Youth at the Time of the Offense................................................. ... ...........................45 B. The Decision Violates Mr. Campbell's Eighth Amendment Rights Because the Decision Fails to Afford Mr. Campbell a Meaningful Opportunity for Release.............47 X. THE PETITION IS NOT MOOT...................... 49 A. This Appeal Fits Squarely Within a Recognized Exception to the Mootness Doctrine. 50 B. The March 2021 Decision Repeats the Same Errors as the Decision This Petition 53 Underlying XI. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER RELEASE.... ......... ... 53 A. Basic Principles of Statutory Interpretation Demenstrate That Previous Decisions on This Issue Are Erroneous.................... 54 1. Plain meaning, context, and legislative history demonstrate the breadth of this Court's authority 54 2. Caselaw concerning the Article 78 court's authority to order release is erroneous, such that this Court may decline to follow precedent 57 B. The 2011 Parole Revisions Instilled a Liberty Interest in Parole Procedure ...................62 C. The Ability of Courts to Convert Habeas Corpus Proceedings into Article 78 Petitions is Indicative of Judicial Authority to Order Release .............................62 D. The Rule of Lenity Supports This Court's Authority to Order Release ........... 63 E. The Board of Parole Lacks Any Special Expertise That Might Undermine the Article 78 Court's Authority to Overrule Board Decisions ............................. ....65 1. Politics, not expertise, ünderlies the Board of Parole ......................65 2. Parole disputes originate in the court system, making judges appropriate arbiters of disputed parole determinations..................... 66 F. Interpreting Article 78 as Curtailing Judicial Authority to Order Release Renders the Statute Unconstitutional.............. .................. 66 G. Logic and Public Policy Considerations Mandate the Conclusion that Article 78 Judges Have Authority to Order Parole Release 66 CONCLUSION 67 ii 3 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) 38, 39, 40, 43 Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) 39 Altria Grp., Inc.v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) 16, 67 Matter of Applewhite, 167 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) 27, 28, 29 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)... ....... ............................................ ................passim Bailey v. McDougall, 66 Misc.2d 161 (Sup. Ct. 1970), aff'd,36 A.D.2d 903 (2d Dep't 1971) 58 Benson v. Stanford, No. 978/2019, Decision, Order, and Judgment (Dutchess Cty. Apr. 27, 2020) 20, 35 Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 (1957) 60 Birdsong v. Nurture, Inc., 275 F. Supp. 3d 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) 16, 67 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 496 (2004) passim Bottom v. Stanford, No. E2020-745 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. Aug 10, 2020) 24 Bresnick v. Saypol, 57 N.Y.S.2d 904 (Sup. Ct. 1945), modified on other grounds, 270 A.D. 837 (1st Dep't 1946.................................................... ............. ................................ 57, 58 Brown v. Commissioner of N.Y S. Dep't of Correctional Serv., 70 A.D.2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)............ .. ................... 29 Bruetsch v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 0230-14, 2014 WL 1910238 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. May 11, 2014)............. .....21,22 Brunner v. Russi, 182 A.D.2d 1136 (4th Dep't 1992) 61 iii 4 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Campbell v. Stanford, Appellate Division, Second Department Docket No. 2017-07216, Dutchess County Supreme Co(ut Index No. 50465/17 (Jan. 8, 2020) 3,7,48 Campbell v. Stanford, Index No. E2020-1001 (Sullivan Cty. Sup. Ct. 2020) passim Chevron, U.SA., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 467 U,S, 837 (1984) 64 Matter of Coaxum v. New York State Bd, of Parole, 827 N, Y,S,2d 489 (Sup, Ct, Bronx Cty, 2006) 25 Coleman v, New York State Dep't of Corr, Ck Cmty, Supervision 157 A.D.3d 672 (2d Dep't 2018) 24, 33 Comfort v. New York State Bd. of Parole, No. 1445/2018 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Dec. 21, 2018) 33 Matter of Comfort v. New York State Div. of Parole, 68 A.D.3d 1295 (3d Dep't 2009) 15 Dinsio v. Supreme Court, 12S A,D,3d 1313 (4th Dep't 2015) ......„„„„„„„„„„............„„„„„„58 Donawitz v, Danek, 42 N, Y,2d 138 (1977) 59 People ex rel, Donohoe v, Montanye, 35 N.Y.2d 221 (1974) 53 Matter of Duffy v. New York State Dep 'tof Corr. 4 Cc.-..=.;.=-=..'.-:?ySupervision, 132 A.D.3d 1207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) .......... 27, 29 Dunne v. Harnett, 92 Misc.2d 48 (Sup. Ct. 1977), aff'd, 59 A.D.2d 1065 (1st Dep't 1977) 57 Fndresz v. Friedberg, 24 N, Y,2d 478 (1969) 60 Esquivel-quintana v, Lynch, 810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016) 64 Ferrante v. Stanford, 172 A.D.3d 3 1 (2d Dep't 2019) 36 Friedgood v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 22 A.D.3d 950 (3d Dep't 2005)........... .54 1V 5 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Fuller v. Evans, 586 Fed. App'x 825 (2d Cir. 2014) 62 Gamble v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 1960 (2019) 58, 59 People ex rel. Ganci v. Henderson, 54 A.D.2d 609 (4th Dep't 1976) 63 Girard v. Glens Falls, 173 A.D.2d 113 (3rd Dep't 1991) 61 Gonmler v.Annucci, 136 A.D.3d 909 (2d Dep't 2016) ........... 58 Gonzalez v.Annucci, 32 N.Y.3d 461 (2018)........................... ..... ............ 51, 53 Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) 46, 49 Grifenhagen v. Ordway, 218 N.Y. 451 (1916) 60 Gundy v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019) 56 Hartje v. Coughlin, 70 N.Y.2d 866 (1987) .................. ..... . ................................61 Hawkins v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supsivision, 30 N.Y.S.3d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) passim People ex rel. Herbert v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128 (1stDep't 1983) 62 Hill v. New York State Bd. ofParole, No. 100121/2020, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9462 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 23, 2020)...... 50, 51, 52, 54 Hopps v. N.Y State Bd. ofParole, Decision and Order Index No. 2553/18 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. 2018) 31, 32 Howland v. Henderson, 54 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976) 29 Huntley v. Evans, 910 N.Y.S.2d 112 (2d Dep't 2010) 37 6 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Jennings v. Stanford, No. 2020-51294, Decisiu11 & Order (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Sept. 17, 2020) 23, 24, 33, 37 Johnson v. New York State Bd of Parole, 65 A.D.3d 838 (4th Dep't 2009) 16, 37 Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3, 44, 49 Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) 37 Kimmel v. State, 29 N.Y.3d 386 (2017)........... 57 Kindler v. City of New York, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160253 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2019) 63 King v. Landreman, No. 19-CV-338, Dkt. No. 6 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2019) 38 King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423 (Ist Dep't 1993), aff'd, 83 N.Y.2d 788 (1994).............. ....... 29, 31, 60 King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 83 N.Y.2d 788 (1994) 59, 60 Kirklin v. United States, 883 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2018) 38 Lebron v.Alexander, 68 A.D.3d 1476 (3d Dep't 2009)...... .......... 53 Leocal v.Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 64 Licitra v. Coughlin, 93 A.D.2d 349 (3rd Dep't 1983) 60 Linares v. Annucci, 710 Fed. App'x 467 (2d Cir. 2017) 63 Lovell v. N.Y State Div. of Parole, 40 A.D.3d 1166 (3d Dep't 2007) 50, 51, 53 Maier v. Coughlin, 193 A.D.2d 1015 (3d Dep't 1993) 61 vi 7 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Marino v. Travis, 13 A.D. 453 (2d Dep't 2004) 51, 52, 53 Mayfield v. Evans, 938 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) 21 McLaurin v. N.Y S. Bd. ofParole, 27 A.D.3d 565 (2d Dep't 2006) 50, 51, 52, 53 In re Melinda D., 31 A.D.3d 24 (2d Dep't 2006) 5 1 People ex rel. Merced v. Warden, Otis Bantum Correctional Ctr., No. 250538/07, 2008 WL 211530019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2008) 63 Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, No. 2010-06556, 2011 WL 6825539 (2d Dep't 2011)..... ....... ........................ 55 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ..... ................ ......... 3, 44, 46, 49 Miranda y. New York State Bd. of Parole, No. 150995/2020, Decision & Order (Sup. Ct. New York Cty. Oct. 13, 2020)........ 37, 50 Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N.Y.2d 37 (1960) ................................................................ ............. .................56 Montgomery v.Louisiana, 136 S Ct. 718 (2016) passim Morris v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 40 Misc. 3d 226 (Sup. Ct. Columbia Cty. 2013) 16, 37 Morris v. New York State Department of Corrections, 963 N.Y.S.2d 852 (Sup. Ct. Columbia Cty. 2013) 22 Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) 43 Matter ofNewton v. Dennison, 47 A.D.3d 538 (1st Dep't 2008) 59 Matter ofPantelidis v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 A.D.3d 314 (1stDep't 2007), affd, 10 N.Y.3d 846 (2008) 62, 65 Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 (1994) 15 vii 8 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331 (1990) ..................................... ___............. 59 People v. Brodie, 37 N.Y. 2d 100 (N.Y. 1975) 45 People v. Hogan, No. 18, 2016 WL 633920 (2d Dep't Feb. 18, 2016)......... 59 People v. Prindle, 29 N.Y.3d 463 (N.Y. 2017) 38 People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476 (2005) 59 People ex rel. Perdue v. Jablonsky, 174 Misc.2d 604 (Sup. Ct. 1997) ... .............................................................58 Piersma on behalf of Majors v. Henderson, 44 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1978).....................................................................................................63 Platt v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 47 Misc. 3d 1059 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. 2015) 37 Police Benev. Ass'n of State Trooper v. Vacco, 253 A.D.2d 920 (3rd Dep't 1998) 61 Policemen's Benev. Ass'n Westchester County, Inc. v. Board Trustees Village of of of of Croton-on-Hudson, 21 A.D.2d 693 (2d Dep't 1964)..... ............... .... 56 Quartararo v. New York State Div. of Parole, 224 A.D.2d 266 (Ist Dep't 1996) 59 Rabeñbaucr v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24347 (Sup. Ct.Sullivan Cty. Nov 12, 2014) .........................33 Rabenbauer v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 995 N.Y.S.2d 490 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Cty. 2014) 21 Rakaric v. Croation Cultural Club, 76 A.D.2d 619 (2d Dep't 1980) 60 Ramirez v. Stanford, No. 1928/2016 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Feb. 7, 2017) 30 Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) 44 viii 9 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Rivera v. Stanford, No. 50638/17, 2019 WL 2030503 (2d Dep't 2019)..................... 24, 45, 52 Robinson v. Stanford, No. 2392/2018 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. Mar. 13, 2019) 33 Rodriguez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, No. 8670/2015, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5111 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Feb. 25, 2016)............... 22 People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Wolfson, 48 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1979) 63 Rossakis v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 146 A.D.3d 22 (1st Dep't 2016) 59 Rossakis v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 196 A.D.3d 22 (1st Dep't 2016) 36 Matter of Simonson v. Cahn, 27 N.Y.2d 1 (1970) 59, 60 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) 68 People ex rel. South v. Hammock, 80 A.D.2d 947 (3d Dep't 1981)...... ......................................... 63 Southern Union Co. v. U.S., 567 U.S. 343 (2012)........ .......... .... ...-....... 39, Speed v. Regan, 50 A.D.2d 1100 (4th Dep't 1975) 60 People ex rel. Spencer v. Goord, 179 Misc. 2d 85 (Sup. Ct. 1998) 63 Standley v. New York State Div. ofParole, 34 A.D.3d 1169 (3d Dep't 2006) 51, 53 State v. Cities Service Co., No. 64300, 1992 WL 34289 (3d Dep't, Feb. 20, 1992) ...................... .... .....-.... 55 Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) 45 Town of Aurora v. Village of East Aurora, 32 N.Y.3d 366 (2018).... ....................... ... ....................... ....... 55 ix 10 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page U S. v. Scully, 108 F. Supp. 3d 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)............. .......64 U S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992) 64 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995) ...... ..................... ..................39 United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019) ....... .. 38, 39, 40 United States v. Ventura, 742 Fed. App'x. 575 (2d. Cir. 2018) 38 Voti v. Stanford, No. 50485/2020 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. May 13, 2020) 32 Matter of West v.New York State Bd. of Parole, No. 3069-13, 2013 WL 5657701 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. Sept. 24, 2013) 21, 22 Westchester County Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Mengel, 266 A.D. 151 (2d Dep't 1943), aff'd, 292 N.Y. 121 (1944) ..........................55 People ex rel. Yates v. Walters, 111 A.D.2d 839 (2d Dep't 1985) ...................................... ...........63 Statutes 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.2 ..................................... ----............... . .............................52 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.2(a) 32, 35 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8002.3 21 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.1 5 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.3(a)(1) 15 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8006.4(c) 5 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 98002.2(a) 33 Civil Practice Act 57 C.P.L.R. Article 78 passim C.P.L.R. § 506................................. ...................................... 4 11 of 84 FILED: SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2021 11:33 AM INDEX NO. E2021-855 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/27/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page C.P.L.R. § 5011 56 C.P.L.R. § 5 104 56 C.P.L.R. § 7801...... ... ......... ................... . ...... 4 C.P.L.R. § 7803 56 C.P.L.R. § 7806 56, 58 Exec. L. § 259-i passim Exec. L. § 259-c (McKinney 2010) ...................... .. 62 Exec. L. § 259-c (McKinney 2012)... .......... 62 Exec. L. § 259(c)(4) 34 Social Services Law § 374-a .............51 U.S. CONST. 64, 67 U.S. CONST. amend V 55 U.S. CONST. amend VI passim U.S. CONST. amend VIII passim U.S. CONST. amend XIV