What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, so the petitioner's challenge to his confinement was unsuccessful.

Who is affected by this decision?

The petitioner, Richard F. Mills, is directly affected because his request for habeas relief was denied; the Department of Corrections remains the custodian under the existing confinement.

Because the appellate court affirmed, the petitioner remains in custody under the same terms; he may consider further appellate options if available and timely, such as seeking leave to appeal to a higher court.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Possibly, but any further appeal (for example, to the Court of Appeals) would be subject to the higher court's jurisdictional and leave-to-appeal rules and applicable deadlines.

People ex rel Mills v. Wolcott

Docket 370 KAH 25-00481

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Habeas CorpusAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02574
Docket: 370 KAH 25-00481

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, denying a habeas corpus petition

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Wyoming County Supreme Court judgment denying Richard F. Mills' petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement at Attica Correctional Facility. The appellate court unanimously affirmed without costs, adopting the reasons stated by the trial court (Justice Terrence M. Parker). No new factual findings or legal analysis appear in the short appellate disposition; the judgment below denying relief therefore stands.

Issues Decided

Whether the petitioner was entitled to habeas corpus relief from his confinement at Attica Correctional Facility
Whether the Supreme Court properly denied the petition based on the reasons stated in its decision

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court affirmed for the reasons set forth by the lower court, indicating that the trial court's analysis and factual findings adequately supported denial of the habeas petition. The Appellate Division gave no independent contrary analysis and found no reversible error in the Supreme Court's disposition. Because the appellate order expressly adopted the trial court's reasoning, those reasons controlled the outcome.

Parties

Petitioner: Richard F. Mills
Respondent: J. Wolcott, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility
Attorney: Lyle T. Hajdu (Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu)
Judge: Terrence M. Parker, A.J.
Judge: Lindley, J.P.
Judge: Curran, J.
Judge: Ogden, J.
Judge: Greenwood, J.
Judge: Delconte, J.

Key Dates

Appellate decision date: 2026-04-24
Supreme Court judgment date: 2024-12-18

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If the petitioner wishes to pursue additional appellate relief, he should consult counsel promptly to assess grounds for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to preserve any deadlines.
2
Request the trial court's opinion
Obtain and review the Supreme Court's written decision (dated 2024-12-18) that the Appellate Division adopted to understand the specific factual and legal reasons the petition was denied.
3
Consider post-conviction remedies or administrative relief
Depending on the grounds of the habeas petition, explore other remedies such as motions in the sentencing court, clemency, or prison administrative remedies with counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, so the petitioner's challenge to his confinement was unsuccessful.
Who is affected by this decision?: The petitioner, Richard F. Mills, is directly affected because his request for habeas relief was denied; the Department of Corrections remains the custodian under the existing confinement.
What happens next?: Because the appellate court affirmed, the petitioner remains in custody under the same terms; he may consider further appellate options if available and timely, such as seeking leave to appeal to a higher court.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Possibly, but any further appeal (for example, to the Court of Appeals) would be subject to the higher court's jurisdictional and leave-to-appeal rules and applicable deadlines.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

People ex rel Mills v Wolcott - 2026 NY Slip Op 02574

People ex rel Mills v Wolcott

2026 NY Slip Op 02574

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. RICHARD F. MILLS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

J. WOLCOTT, SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

370 KAH 25-00481

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Greenwood, And Delconte, JJ.

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Terrence M. Parker, A.J.), dated December 18, 2024, in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn