People v. Lockrow
| Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | 523328 |
| Citation | 78 N.Y.S.3d 736,161 A.D.3d 1492 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin P. LOCKROW, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
161 A.D.3d 1492
78 N.Y.S.3d 736
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Kevin P. LOCKROW, Appellant.
523328
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: May 2, 2018
Decided and Entered: May 31, 2018
Linda B. Johnson, East Greenbush, for appellant.
Joel E. Abelove, District Attorney, Troy (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mulvey, J.
Appeal from a decision of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), dated June 25, 2003, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
In August 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with sodomy in the third degree, and he was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. In anticipation of his release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument that, although presumptively classifying defendant as a risk level one sex offender, sought an upward departure to a risk level three classification. Following a hearing, which defendant did not attend, County Court—utilizing a standard risk level classification form dated June 25, 2003—classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation. Defendant, pro se, prepared two notices of appeal from County Court's June 2003 decision—the most recent of which was dated in 2004.
In October 2006, defendant asked County Court to revisit its 2003 ruling—contending that he "was given the wrong designation for [his] offense." In so doing, defendant made clear that he was not challenging his risk level classification at that time but, rather, sought only to remove his designation as a sexually violent offender. On October 25, 2006, County Court granted defendant's request—again classifying him as a risk level three sex offender but omitting any further designation. Defendant was assigned counsel in this matter in October 2016 and filed his brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lane
...risk level classification without "so-ordered" language or specific findings and conclusions (see e.g. People v. Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d 1492, 1493, 78 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2018] ). In each of these situations, this Court generally dismisses the appeal, as we must, because it is not properly before us......
-
People v. Lane
...the defendant's risk level classification without "so-ordered" language or specific findings and conclusions (see e.g. People v Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d 1492, 1493 [2018]). In of these situations, this Court generally dismisses the appeal, as we must, because it is not properly before us due to ......
-
People v. Porter
...not properly before this Court and must be dismissed (see People v. Head, 163 A.D.3d at 1297, 77 N.Y.S.3d 591 ; People v. Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d 1492, 1493, 78 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2018] ; People v. Horton, 142 A.D.3d 1256, 1257, 37 N.Y.S.3d 923 [2016] ; People v. Cleveland, 139 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 31......
-
People v. West
...and notation that it was "Received by ____," but the order does not reflect that it was entered and filed (see People v. Lockrow, 161 A.D.3d 1492, 1493, 78 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2018] ).2 Although the court indicated at the end of the hearing that its bench decision would "constitute the decision a......