Whether an alleged parole violator who is held in a federal prison has a right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing from the New York State Division of Parole before his federal release date if he is temporarily held in New York prisons.

No. A federal prisoner who is temporarily held in New York facilities is not a New York prisoner and the Division cannot execute the warrant until the alleged violator is in New York custody solely on the basis of the warrant.

In 1992, while he was on parole following a New York State conviction, federal authorities convicted Michael Matthews ("Petitioner") of bank robbery. The following year, the State Division of Parole (the "Division") lodged a parole violation detainer with authorities at the federal prison where Matthews was held. When the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded Matthews' case for resentencing, Matthews spent time in various New York county jails during the proceedings. After those proceedings, he served the remainder of his sentence in federal prison and was then taken into State custody pursuant to the Division's parole violation warrant.

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in Supreme Court, arguing that he had not been given a preliminary parole revocation hearing while serving time in State jails, and that his parole violation detainer should be lifted. He based his petition on New York Exec. Law §259-i(3)(c)(i), which mandates that the Board of Parole give an alleged violator a preliminary parole revocation hearing "within fifteen days after the [warrant] and temporary detention has been executed." This fifteen day rule applies unless the Division can prove that the violator was beyond its "convenience and practical control." See Vasquez v. New York State Board of Parole, 58 N.Y.2d 981, 983 (N.Y. 1983); Gonzalez v. Dalsheim, 52 N.Y.2d 9, 12 (N.Y. 1980).

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the Division did not have "convenience and practical control" over the petitioner. However, the Supreme Court also found that while in New York jails, Petitioner was not "detained in another state" and thus was not subject to the limitations of Exec. Law §259-i(3)(a)(iv). The Appellate Division reversed, holding only that the Division failed to show that Petitioner was beyond its "convenience and practical control."

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Legislature enacted Exec. Law §259-i(3)(a)(iv) specifically to address alleged parole violators incarcerated in out-of-state facilities. In order for the warrant to be "executed," a violator must be held solely on the merits of a parole violation detainer. Since a federal prisoner held temporarily in New York jails is not a New York prisoner, the warrant can be executed only after the federal authorities relinquish custody. Until that date, the prisoner is not under the Division's "convenience and practical control" and has no right to a hearing.