People v. Carey, 500140.
| Decision Date | 17 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | 501415.,500140. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRUCE CAREY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In 1983, defendant was convicted of two counts of promoting prostitution in the second degree and one count of promoting prostitution in the third degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 1/3 to 22 years and was paroled in 1990. In 1992, he was convicted of, among other things, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 15 to 30 years, and he was required to also serve the remainder of his 1983 sentence.
In 2006, as defendant was to be paroled, he received notification that he was to be assessed and assigned a final sex offender risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA; see Correction Law art 6-C). He appeared before County Court with counsel, waived a hearing and stipulated to a risk level two assessment. When he later moved to withdraw the waiver and consent, County Court denied his motion. Defendant appeals from the order assessing him as a risk level two sex offender, as well as from the denial of his motion to withdraw.
Defendant contends that the requirement that he register under SORA violates both his substantive due process rights and his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because he is being released as a drug offender, not a sex offender. The People contend that he is subject to SORA through the application of Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (a) and (b).
By statute, all individuals convicted of a sex offense who are on parole, on probation or incarcerated and serving a sentence for such offense as of January 21, 1996 are subject to SORA (see Correction Law §§ 168-f, 168-g). Effective January 1, 2000, promoting prostitution in the second degree became a sex offense, thereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nichols
...counsel was not adequately prepared. The record reveals that defendant received the effective assistance of counsel see People v. Carey, 47 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 850 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 893, 861 N.Y.S.2d 265, 891 N.E.2d 299 [2008]; People v. Hood, 35 A.D.3d 1138, 11......
-
People v. Lightaul
...circumstances at the time of the representation, we find that defendant was provided with meaningful representation” (People v. Carey, 47 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 850 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2008], lv. dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 893, 861 N.Y.S.2d 265, 891 N.E.2d 299 [2008] ; see People v. Nichols, 80 A.D.3d 1013,......
-
In the Matter of Mark H. Dewine v. State Bd. of Examiners of Sex Offenders
...date” ( Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263, 1266, cert. denied 522 U.S. 1122, 118 S.Ct. 1066, 140 L.Ed.2d 126; see § 168–g; People v. Carey, 47 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 850 N.Y.S.2d 260, lv. dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 893, 861 N.Y.S.2d 265, 891 N.E.2d 299). “Pursuant to Correction Law § 168–a(2)(d), certain d......
-
People v. Ayala
...contention of defendant, we conclude that he was provided effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing ( see People v. Carey, 47 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 850 N.Y.S.2d 260, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 893, 861 N.Y.S.2d 265, 891 N.E.2d 299). Defendant's contentions concerning the underlying convict......