The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld the denial of parole for Richard Mills, a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison sentence. The court's decision, issued on May 21, 2026, affects Mills, who has faced multiple legal challenges regarding his parole eligibility. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal process surrounding parole hearings and the rights of inmates seeking release.
The case, titled Matter of Mills v. Towns (docket number CV-25-0763), stems from Mills' convictions for attempted murder and other charges stemming from a 2001 incident in which he fired a rifle at a police officer. Mills initially pleaded guilty to lesser charges but later faced a trial and was convicted of more serious offenses, resulting in a 20-year-to-life sentence. His legal journey has included multiple resentencing and appearances before the Board of Parole.
In 2021, Mills was first denied parole after waiving his right to appear during the hearing. Following an administrative appeal, he sought further legal recourse through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Mills' second appearance before the Board for parole was scheduled for February 2024, where he again waived his right to appear and was denied release, leading to the current legal challenge.
The court ruled that Mills' subsequent de novo hearing, which took place on May 20, 2025, rendered his previous challenges moot. The judges noted, "petitioner has 'received all of the relief to which he was entitled — namely, a de novo appearance before the Board.'" This affirmation by the court indicates that Mills' legal arguments regarding his parole denial were resolved with the new hearing, even though he did not achieve the desired outcome of release.
Judge Clark, along with Justices Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Ryba, concurred in the decision to affirm the Supreme Court's ruling without costs. The court emphasized that Mills' claims regarding the legality of his sentencing and the conditions of his detention must be pursued in the appropriate court rather than through a habeas corpus petition.
The court's decision has broader implications for inmates seeking parole in New York. It reinforces the necessity for inmates to follow proper legal channels when contesting the conditions of their sentences and the outcomes of parole hearings. The ruling also highlights the importance of administrative procedures in the parole process, ensuring that inmates are aware of their rights and the consequences of waiving their appearances at hearings.
Moving forward, Mills remains in custody as he continues to seek parole. His case illustrates the complexities of the parole system and the legal avenues available to inmates. While Mills has exhausted some of his legal options, he may still appeal certain aspects of the ruling or pursue other legal remedies in the future.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling does not preclude Mills from seeking further legal action. However, any future challenges would need to be based on new legal grounds or demonstrate a significant change in circumstances. Additionally, Mills' case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the rights of inmates during parole hearings.