D was sentenced to an indeterminate term of one and two-thirds to five years incarceration upon the conviction following jury trial of one count of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. D was found guilty of striking and killing a pedestrian while driving a motor vehicle at approximately 60 mph in a 25 mph zone. D appeared before the Parole Board on February 6, 2018, and was denied parole release with a 24-month hold. D timely appealed and the denial was affirmed. D asserts that the Parole Board failed to appreciate that he had taken full responsibility for his actions and that the Parole Board failed to consider the victim's intoxication was a factor in the accident despite the speed. D argues that the Parole Board failed to consider the statutory factors enumerated in Executive Law §259-i(2)(c). The Parole Board denied parole and stated that, if released at this time, there is a reasonable probability that D would not live at liberty without violating the law. D's release was incompatible with the welfare and safety of the community. Despite that his COMPAS indicates a low risk in several individual areas his reckless behavior in manipulating the vehicle to drive at an accelerated speed, compiled with driving approximately 60 mph in a 25 mph jurisdiction placed both the driving public and pedestrians at grave risk. P asked that D’s petition be dismissed. The Court's role is only to determine if P followed the statutory guidelines and rendered a determination that is supported and not contradicted, by the facts in the record.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.