People v. Fuller
| Decision Date | 28 April 2016 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin G. FULLER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jay L. Wilber, Public Defender, Binghamton (Nathan E. Schwartzman of counsel), for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
McCARTHY
, J.P.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), dated July 31, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
In 1989, defendant was convicted of, among other things, three counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 to 50 years (People v. Fuller, 185 A.D.2d 446, 586 N.Y.S.2d 366 [1992]
, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 974, 591 N.Y.S.2d 144, 605 N.E.2d 880 [1992] ). In anticipation of his release on parole, a risk assessment instrument was prepared, in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C), that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender. Following a hearing, County Court rejected defendant's challenges to certain point assessments and adjudicated him a risk level III sex offender. This appeal ensued.
The order that defendant seeks to have reviewed by this Court was "not ... entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court and, therefore, the appeal from that order must be dismissed because it is not properly before us at this time" (People v. Laurange, 97 A.D.3d 995, 996, 948 N.Y.S.2d 567 [2012]
[internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Goodwin, 131 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 15 N.Y.S.3d 896 [2015] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
GARRY
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lane
...e.g. People v. West, 193 A.D.3d at 1128, 145 N.Y.S.3d 669 ; People v. Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d at 1493, 78 N.Y.S.3d 736 ; People v. Fuller, 138 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 28 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2016] ; People v. Davis, 130 A.D.3d 1131, 1132, 10 N.Y.S.3d 918 [2015] ; see also CPLR 5016[a] ; 5512[a]; 5515[1]; c......
-
People v. Lane
...the appeal as not properly before us (see e.g. People v West, 193 A.D.3d at 1128; People v Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d at 1493; People v Fuller, 138 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [2016]; People v Davis, 130 A.D.3d 1131, 1132 [2015]; see also CPLR 5016 [a]; 5512 [a]; 5515 [1]; cf. People v Laurange, 97 A.D.3d 9......
-
People v. Lane
...the appeal as not properly before us (see e.g. People v West, 193 A.D.3d at 1128; People v Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d at 1493; People v Fuller, 138 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [2016]; People v Davis, 130 A.D.3d 1131, 1132 see also CPLR 5016 [a]; 5512 [a]; 5515 [1]; cf. People v Laurange, 97 A.D.3d 995, 996 ......
-
Young v. State, 519149.
...granted defendants' motion and dismissed the claim. Claimant now appeals. Initially, we note that the time requirements set forth in the 138 A.D.3d 1358 Court of Claims Act for filing a claim are strictly construed, as such requirements are jurisdictional in nature (see Encarnacion v. State......