Keila Pulinario Decision

8/13/2019 Keila Pulinario Decision

1/9

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKN W YORK COUNTY

wk P T R H.MOULTONPRESENT:-Justice

PART 7

V

INDEX No. IS 79./MOTION DATEMOTION SEQ. O. 1

The following papers, numbered 1 to ,were read on this motion tolforNotice of MotionlOrder o Show Cause- ffidavits - xhibitsAnsw ering Affidavits- xhibits I No(s).OW.Replying Affidavits I No(s).Upon the foregoing papers, it is o rd ered tha t th is mot ion is

UNFILEDJUDGMENTThis judgment has ot been entered by the ounty lerknd notice entry cannot be sewed based hereon Toobtain entry counsel or authorized representative musta p p e~ ~n person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (RoomIlrlB ,

u

3.s.c.Oli3;PETER H*MI-.--..-..--NON-FINAL DISPOStNO. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... DENIE D. ._.......2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: RANTED3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ c] ETTLE ORDER

RANTED IN PART THEUBMIT ORDER

O NOT POS T IDUCIARY APPOINTMENT EFEREN


2/9

Petitioner-against- Index No. 100990/13

N E W YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,NTHONY ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner oNew York State Department of Correctionsand Community Supervision,'NEW YORKSTATE BOARD OF PAROLE, and TINA STANFORD,Chairwoman of the New York State Boardof Parole, c

Respondents.X_________I________

Peter H. Moulton, JusticeI n t hi s Ar t i c l e 78 pr oc eedi ng pet i t i oner Kei l a Pul i nar i o

( Pul i nar i o ) c hal l enges t he dec i s i on of r espondent New Yor k St at eBoar d of Par ol e ( Par ol e Boar d ) dat' ed J une 6, 2012, t o deny herappl i c at i on f or par ol e.

BACKGROUNDPul i nar i o wa s conv i c t ed i n 1997 of t he mur der i n t he second

degr ee of I magi o Sant ana ( Sant ana ) i n S u f f o l k Count y, New Yor k.The t wo had been f r i ends . Pet i t i oner asser t s t hat i n 1995, Sant anar aped her i n hi s car and t hen br agged t o mut ual acquai nt ances aboutt he i nc i dent . Af t er l ear ni ng about Sant ana' s s t at ement . s , Pul i nar i obor r owed a gun f r om h e r boyf r i end and convi nced Sant ana t o


3/9

, accompany her t o a wooded ar ea wher e she conf r ont ed hi m Shest at ed t hat Sant ana mocked her and t hr eat ened t o do i t agai n,

, al t hough i t i s unc l ear f r om t he r ec or d bef or e t he cour t i f t het hr eat i nc l uded t he i mpl i c at i on of i mm nent vi ol enc e. Pul i nar i ot hen k i l l ed Sant ana wi t h t wo bul l et s and bur i ed t he gun. She wasappr ehended, char ged, and t r i ed. Af t er t he j ur y de l i ver ed aver di c t of second degr ee mur der t he cour t sent enced her t o 25 yearst o l i f e.

Pul i nar i o subsequent l y br ought a habeas cor pus pet i t i on. TheFeder al Di s t r i c t Cour t gr ant ed t he pet i t i on and vacat ed herconv i c t i on and sent ence. \

Fol l owi ng t he gr ant of t he habeas pet i t i on Pul i nar i o pl eadedgui l t y t o mur der i n t he second degr ee and was r e- sent enced wi t h t hepr osecut or s r ecommendat i on t o a per i od of 15 year s t o l i f e. Att he r e- sent enci ng hear i ng t he ADA, who had r epr esent ed t he Peopl ebegi nni ng, wi t h t he f i r s t t r i al , not ed t hat Pul i nar i o had ac cept ed(r espons i bi l i t y f or t he c r i me and had made gr eat s t r i des i n t her ehabi l i t at i on pr ocess such t hat : she was not t he t he same per sonshe was 10 year s ago . The ADA al so s ta t ed, , i nt er al i a, t hat hada det er m nat e sent ence of 15 year s been avai l abl e, t hat l i kel y

Suf f ol k Count y Di s t r i c t At t or ney s o f f i ce woul d not t ake a pos i t i onon par ol e.

Pul i nar i o s f i r s t appl i cat i on f or par ol e, i n 2010, was deni ed.\2


4/9

The i nst ant pr oceedi ng concer ns her second appl i cat i on.Pul i nar i o' s second appl i cat i on ' f or par ol e i nc l uded ex tens i ve

i nf or mat i on concer ni ng her par t i c i pat i on i n var i ous pr ogr ams whi l ei nc ar c er at ed, i nc l udi ng ST Ps t o End Fam l y Vi ol ence, a pr ogr amt hat wor ks wi t h i ncar cer at ed women who have suf f er ed abuse. Si s t er -Mar y Ner ney of t he S T E P s pr ogr am s ubm t t ed a l et t er o n Pul i nar i o' sbehal f , i n whi ch she r ecount ed Pul i nar i o' s pos i t i ve changes i n herf i f t een year s behi nd bar s . I n r e c o k en di n g t hat Pul i nar i o wasr eady \ \ t o et ur n t o soci ety' ' Si s t er Ner ney no t ed t ha t Pul i nar i o hadexpr essed r emor se f or her cr i me, and had part i c i pat ed i nr ehabi l i t at i ve a nd vocat i onal p ro gr ams whi l e i ncar cer at ed. Thi sassess ment was bol st er ed by t he C OMPAS r e p o r t of Pul i nar i o' s P ar ol eOf f i cer , whi ch s t at ed t hat she was l ow r i sk o f danger t o soc i et y.

Pul i nar i o' s appl i c at i on al s o i ncl uded a l et t er f r o m El ai neLor d, who was t he Super i nt endent of t he Bedf or d Hi l l s Cor r ec t i onalFaci l i t y i n 1997 - when Pul i nar i o ar r i ved at t hat f ac i l i t y -

? .

t hr ough 2004. T he l et t er c ont ai ns a des c r i pt i on of Pul i nar i o' spos i t i ve evol ut i on whi l e at Bedf or d Hi l l s .

Ms . Pul i nar i o wi l l t ur n 38 o n May 18 [ 2012] .She was 23 when she came' t o Bedf or d Hi l l s .She has ser ved a l ong t i me dur i ng whi ch s hehas mat ur ed' and gr ew and needs now t o be i nt he communi t y us i ng t he sk i l l s t ha t she hasac qui r ed and t he mat ur i t y t hey i l l us t r at e.Ther e i s not hi ng t o be gai ned by, keepi ng Ms.Pul i nar i o i n pr i son and ever y expec t at i on t hatshe woul d be an asse t t o our soc i et y i f shewer e r el eased.

On J une 6, 2012, . Pul i nar i ? appear ed be f or e t he Par ol e Boar dt

3


5/9

f or t he second t i me . The Par ol e Boar d . deni ed her appl i cat i on ont he same day. \

At t he hear i ng, a l most a l l t he Boar d' s quest i ons and comment sconcer ned t he c i r cumst ances of t he c r i me, t he r ape , and Ms.\Pul i nar i o' r el at i onsh i p t o Sant ana. The Par ol e Boar d made onl ypass i ng r e f e rences t o t he cont ent s of t he appl i cat i on packet .Ther e wer e no quest i ons about Pul i nar i o' s det ai l ed r el ease pl ans .Ther e wer e no quest i ons t ha t went t o Pul i nar i o' s vocat i ona l wor k - -

dur i ngnd wor k on her behavi or and sel f - knowl edge - -i ncar cer at i on; The Par o l e Boar d spent no t i me at t hehear i ng or i ni t s dec i s i on di s c us s i ng t he COMPAS asses sment and t he comment s byt he ADA at Pul i nar i o' s r es ent enc i ng.

The Par o l e Boar d i ssued i t s dec i s i on t he same day. TKedec i s i on s t at es t hat t her e is a r easo nabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat youwoul d not l i ve and r emai n at l i ber t y wi t hout v i o l a t i ng t he l aw andt hat your r el ease woul d be i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he publ i c sa f et y andwel f ar e of t he communi t y.

The r emai ni ng t wo par agr aphs of t he dec i s i on s t at e:Thi s dec i s i on was based on t he f ol l owi ng: Youcont i nue t o ser ve t i me f or your conv i c t i on ofmur der s econd degr ee. You armed your se l f wi t ha gun, l ur ed your vi c t i m t o a s ec l uded ar eaand shot hi m i n t he chest and back caus i ng hi sdeat h. You t hen bur i ed t he gun i n an ef f o r tt o f ool t he pol i c e. Dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew youc l ai m your ac t i ons wer e j us t t o s c ar e t hev i c t i m However your ac t i ons werepr emedi t a t ed.


6/9

i

The panel has consi der ed your manyaccompl i shment s, your good conduct , yourl et t er s of suppor t , t he r i sk assessment andal l f ac t or s r equi r ed by l aw. However , t hescenar i o and your conduct dur i ng t he i nst antof f ense ar e concer ni ng and descr i be a devi at edand danger ous per son who coul d i mpose a t hr eatt o t he communi t y . Par ol e at t hi s t i me i sdeni ed. I

...

DISCUSSIONExecut i ve Law 5 259- i ( 2) I C) ( A) s t a t es i n r el evant par t :

Di sc r et i onar y r el ease on par ol e shal l not begr ant ed mer, el y as a r ewar d f or good conduct oref f i c i ent per f or mance of dut i es whi l e conf i nedbut af t er c ons i der i ng i f t her e i s a r eas onabl epr obabi l i t y t h at , i f s uc h i nmat e i s r el eas ed,he wi l l l i ve and r emai n at l i ber t y wi t houtvi ol at i ng t he l aw, and t hat hi s r el eas e i s noti ncompat i bl e wi t h t he wel f ar e of soc i et y andwi l l not depr ec at e t he s er i ous nes s of hi scr i me as t o under m ne r espect f or t he l aw.

I t i s t he dut y of t he Par ol e Boar d t o cons i der each of t heappl i c abl e f ac t or s s pec i f i ed i n t he s t at ut e i n det er m ni ng t he appl i cat i ons of peopl e who come bef or e i t . ( Ki na v New Y o r k St at eDi vi s i on of Par ol e, 190 AD2d 423, 431, af f d 83 NY2d 788. ) , TheBoar d has di scr et i on t o det er m ne how much wei ght t o gi ve each oft he appl i cabl e f ac t or s . The di s c r et i on r eposed i n t he Boar d i sbr oad, and i t s det er m nat i on wi l l onl y be over t ur ned wher e i t

.ev i nces i r r at i onal i t y bor der i ng on i mpr opr i e t y . ( Samuel vAl exander , 69 AD3d 861, 862, appeal di sm ssed 14 NY3d 837.

Whi l e t hi s s t andar d of r ev i ew set s a hi gh t hr eshol d, andcour ts are pr oper l y r e l uc t a nt t o second guess t he Par ol e Boar d,

,


7/9

cour t s have r ever sed Par ol e Boar d deci s i ons wher e t he Boar d' sdec i s i on i s based sol el y on t he ser i ousness of t he cr i me. ( E . a .Al monor v New Yor k St at e Boar d of Par ol e, 16 Mi sc3d 1126[ A] )Mor eover , t o demonst r at e t hat i t has pr oper l y cons i der ed andwei ghed appl i cabl e s t at ut or y ' f act or s , t he Par o l e Boar d must do moret han make a passi ng r ef er ence t o such f act or s. ( Ri os v New Yor kSt at e Di v i s i on o f Par o l e , 15 Mi sc3d 1107[ A] ) ,

/

\

. I n c ons i der i ng . pet i t i oner ' s appl i c at i on, t he P ar ol e Boar d' sover whel m ng emphasi s was on t he of f ense, and t he event s t hat l edup t o t he of f ense . At t he hear i ng, t here wer e onl y pass i ngr ef er enc es t o t he c ont ent s of pet i t i oner ' s appl i c at i on. I n t hedeci s i on t her e was onl y a per f unct or y ment i on of al l t he s t at ut or yf ac t o r s t hat wei ghed i n Pul i nar i o' s f avor .

1 Ther e was no subst ant i ve di scuss i on by t he Par ol e Boar d at t hehear i ng or i n i t s dec i s i on of . ot her f ac t o r s r el evant t o i t sdet er m nat i on, i nc l udi ng Pul i nar i o' s ac cept anc e of r es pons i bi l i t yf or her cr i me, her vocat i onal wor k i n pr i son and her empl oymentpl ans once r e l eased, her work i n S T E P S and ot her pr ogr ams t o changeher behavi or and pr epar e her sel f t o l i ve i n soc i et y . I There i snot hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e t hat t he Paro l e Boar d wei ghed t heADA' s s t at ement s at Pul i nar i o' s 2004 r e - sent enc i ng, The ADA i nquest i on had been t he pr osecut or on t he case f r om i t s i ncept i on.She di d not have . t o make any st at ement concer ni ng t he def endant ' sr ehabi l i t at i on at t he r e- sent enc i ng. Her assessment t hat Pul i nar i o


8/9

. . ihad made gr eat s t r i des i n t he r ehabi l i t at i on pr ocess , and ot her

st at ement s at sent enci ng, must be consi der ed by t he Par ol e Boar d.( Execut i ve Law 2 5 9 4 c ) A) vi i ) )

/Ther e was no- subst ant i ve di scuss i on i n t he hear i ng or i n t hePar ol e Boar d' s deci s i on of t he COMPAS assessment , whi ch i s desi gned

tI

t o meas ur e r i s ks ar i s i ng f r om a gr ant of par ol e. The over al lassessment , by a Par o l e Of f i cer who had wor ked wi t h Pul i nar i o s i ncel at e 2010 at her c or r ec t i onal f ac i l i t y, was t hat Pul i nar i o was a'

l ow ri , sk f o r f el ony vi ol ence, r e- ar r es t , , or absc ondi ng frompar ol e. The COMPAS assessment i s i nt egr a l t o any par o l e deci s i on.See Gar f kel d v Evans, 108 AD3d 830' . ) i

I n sum t he Par o l e Boar d gave gr eat wei ght t o t he ser i ousnessof Pul i nar i o' s cr i me wi t hout any expl anat i on of why t he sevent eenLyear ol d cr i me out wei ghed t he vol um nous evi dence t hat i ndi cat est hat she woul d pr esent l y be abl e t o l i ve a qui et and cr i me- f r eel i f e i n s oc i et y. Ac cor di ngl y, t he pet i t i oner i s ent i t l ed t o a' newhear i ng and det er m nat i on. ( Per f et t o v Evans, 112 AD3d 640;Rabenbauer v New Yor k St at e DeD' t of Cor r ect i ons , 41 Mi sc3d1235 [ AI .

c

-CONCLUSION /

. ,

I ,

-For t he r eas ons s t at ed i t i s

f ur t her

7I. .


9/9

O R D E R E D and A D J U D G E D t hat - t he. cour t annul s r espondent ' sdec i s i on, dat ed J une 6, 2012, deny i ng pet i t i oner ' s r el ease t opar ol e s uper vi s i on, and i t i s f ur t her

O R D E R E D and A D J U D G E D t hat t he mat t er i s rem t t ed t o t he St at eBoar d of Par ol e t o ho l d such a hear i ng wi t hi n 45 days of s er vi c e oft hi s or der and j udgment wi t h not i ce of ent r y. Thi s c ons t i t ut es t heOr der and J udgment of t he Cour t .

I

UONFILED JUDGMENTThis judgment has ncit b u m entered by t h e County Cleand notice of ent y cannot c ses~ed ased hE?fE?OR, Tcobtain entry. counsel or authorized reprc3 sentativemustappear in person at Judgment Clerk's Desk (Rwn?)% IS)-

\

DATED : Febr uar y 11, 2013J . S . C .

8

Documents

Keila Pulinario Decision