You are here: / / Attempt to Violate a Prison Rule Is Sufficient to Find a Violation/Intent...

Attempt to Violate a Prison Rule Is Sufficient to Find a Violation/Intent Is Irrelevant

The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the petitioner-inmate had violated the prison rule prohibiting the possession of loose stamps in the prison library. Petitioner argued he did not violate the rule because he was found in possession of the loose stamps outside of the library and he did not intend to violate the rule . However, the Court of Appeals determined an attempt to violate a prison rule is sufficient (petitioner acknowledged he was on his way to the library when the stamps were found) and the petitioner’s intent was not an element of the offense:

Prison rules state explicitly that inmates who attempt “to violate institutional rules of conduct . . . [are] punishable to the same degree as violators of such rules . . . . [and] may be cited for attempts . . . whether or not the text of an actual rule contains such term[]” (7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]). Petitioner testified during the disciplinary hearing that he was carrying the loose stamps while on his way to the law library. Thus, by his own admission, he is guilty of an attempt to violate the provision, and as a consequence Rule 113.22. Furthermore, whether petitioner was aware that he was in violation of a restriction on loose stamps is irrelevant because Rule 113.22 applies regardless of the inmate’s intent. Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 2015 NY Slip Op 07696, CtApp 10-22-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE CONCEALED CARRY STATUTE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF HIS INDICTMENT (A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUST PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S INDICTMENT) SURVIVED HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER APPLIED FOR A FIREMARM LICENSE, HE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE BASED ON HIS CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE CHALLENGED PORTION OF THE STATUTE IS SEVERABLE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY (CT APP).
PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP).
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.
DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN 2024, ERLINGER V US HELD THAT A JURY MUST DETERMINE WHETHER A LOOKBACK PERIOD RELEVANT TO ENHANCED SENTENCING HAS BEEN TOLLED; BECAUSE THE SENTENCING COURT DETERMINED THAT ERLINGER APPLIED, AND BECAUSE THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EMPANEL A JURY FOR RESENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; ON APPEAL THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE ERLINGER ISSUE (I.E. WHETHER ERLINGER APPLIED) WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSLY DECLINED TO ARGUE IT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE HAD BEEN PRESERVED AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT (FIRST DEPT). ​
SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL.
THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
EVEN WHERE AN INJURED WORKER SETTLES WITH A THIRD-PARTY BEFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE IS DETERMINED, THE EMPLOYER’S CARRIER MUST SHARE IN THE LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Police Were Justified In Questioning Defendant’s Presence In Lobby of... Under the Circumstances Plaintiff Could Not Strictly Comply with the Whistleblower...