142 A.D.3d 1256, 2016-06276, People v. Horton

JudgeBefore: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.
Writing for the CourtClark, J.
Citation142 A.D.3d 1256,37 N.Y.S.3d 923
Date29 September 2016
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEVI HORTON, Appellant
Docket Number521056,2016-06276

Page 1256

142 A.D.3d 1256

37 N.Y.S.3d 923

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.

LEVI HORTON, Appellant

2016-06276, 521056

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

September 29, 2016

Craig Meyerson, Latham, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Page 1257

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeal from a decision of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), dated February 20, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in satisfaction of a five-count indictment and was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison to be followed by 10 years of supervised release ( see 18 U.S.C. § 2252A [a] [B]). Upon his release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment instrument in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C) that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level one sex offender, and recommended an upward departure to a risk level three classification. The People submitted a risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. Following a hearing, County Court found that defendant was a presumptive level two sex offender based upon a score of 95 [37 N.Y.S.3d 924] points, but determined that an upward departure was warranted and classified him as a risk level three sex offender. Defendant now appeals.

County Court was required by statute to " render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based" (Correction Law § 168--n [3]), and it was further required that such order be " entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable" (CPLR 2220 [a]; accord People v. Cleveland, 139 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 31 N.Y.S.3d 678 [2016]; People v. Goodwin, 131 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 15 N.Y.S.3d 896 [2015]). The record here does not reflect that an order was ever issued or entered and filed. While the court executed a standard form designating defendant's risk level classification, that form is not identified as an order ( see CPLR 5512 [a]) and does not contain " so ordered"...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT