From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Edward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 13, 2008
49 A.D.3d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 503115.

March 13, 2008.

Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), entered September 11, 2006, which denied defendant's motion to vacate his classification as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

D.J. J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of counsel), for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Robin S. Engler of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ.


In 1993, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted sodomy in the first degree. Following his release from prison, he was classified as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]). In 2004, defendant declined an opportunity to challenge his risk level classification pursuant to the stipulation in Doe v Pataki ( 3 F Supp 2d 456). In 2006, defendant moved to vacate his risk level classification and grant him a new hearing or, alternatively, for relief from the obligation to register. County Court denied defendant's motion, prompting this appeal.

County Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate his risk level classification. The state has since stipulated, pursuant to the Second Circuit's decision in Doe v Pataki ( 481 F3d 69), that a class of individuals including defendant will be afforded a new opportunity to request a risk level classification hearing. Because that stipulation occurred subsequent to County Court's decision, it does not alter our determination on this appeal.

Defendant is ineligible for relief from SORA's registration requirements, as he has not been registered for at least 30 years ( see Correction Law § 168-o, as amended by L 2006, ch 1, § 5; see generally Doe v Pataki, 481 F3d 69, supra). To the extent that he seeks relief pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (2), we agree with County Court's denial of the request based upon defendant's failure to follow the procedure outlined in that subdivision.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People v. Edward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 13, 2008
49 A.D.3d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Edward

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWARD R. PERO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 13, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2072
853 N.Y.S.2d 683

Citing Cases

People v. Stein

Failure to follow the procedure and guidelines in the statute warrant a denial of a request for modification.…

People v. Rocktaschel

We affirm. Defendant is "ineligible for relief from SORA's registration requirements, as he has not been…