People v. Sprinkler
| Citation | 162 A.D.3d 802,79 N.Y.S.3d 232 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2014–09768 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Derrick SPRINKLER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
162 A.D.3d 802
79 N.Y.S.3d 232
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Derrick SPRINKLER, appellant.
2014–09768
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—January 29, 2018
June 13, 2018
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Susan Epstein of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leonard P. Rienzi, J.), dated September 26, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Correction Law § 168–l(8) provides that a failure by a state or local agency to act or by a court to render a determination within the time period specified by the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA) shall not affect the obligation of a sex offender to register or verify under SORA, nor shall such failure prevent a court from making a determination regarding the sex offender's risk level. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.3d 814, 815, 29 N.Y.S.3d 542 ; see People v. Gallagher, 129 A.D.3d 1252, 1253, 11 N.Y.S.3d 712 ; People v. Wilkes, 53 A.D.3d 1073, 1074, 862 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; cf. People v. Gregory, 71 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 897 N.Y.S.2d 665 ).
"[U]tilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally ‘result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule’ " ( People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545, 545, 778 N.Y.S.2d 704, quoting SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; see People v. Boyd, 121 A.D.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...27 N.Y.3d 337, 341, 33 N.Y.S.3d 132, 52 N.E.3d 1158 ; People v. Sanchez, 186 A.D.3d 880, 882, 130 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; People v. Sprinkler, 162 A.D.3d 802, 79 N.Y.S.3d 232 ; People v. Curry, 158 A.D.3d 52, 58, 68 N.Y.S.3d 483 ). The SORA court is then obligated to conduct a hearing at which the Pe......
-
People v. Gatling
...Yglesias , 180 A.D.3d 821, 823, 120 N.Y.S.3d 169 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 910, 2020 WL 3468268 [2020] ; People v. Sprinkler , 162 A.D.3d 802, 803, 79 N.Y.S.3d 232 [2d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 907, 2018 WL 4997600 [2018] ). Moreover, even if defendant surmounted the first......
-
People v. Williams
...the offense are not taken into account by the Guidelines or the Risk Assessment Instrument (hereinafter RAI)" ( People v. Sprinkler, 162 A.D.3d 802, 803, 79 N.Y.S.3d 232 ), the defendant, who had only been at liberty for approximately three years at the time of the SORA hearing, failed to e......
-
People v. Gatling
...in New York State (see People v Yglesias, 180 A.D.3d 821, 823 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 910 [2020]; People v Sprinkler, 162 A.D.3d 802, 803 [2d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 907 [2018]). Moreover, even if defendant surmounted the first two steps of the analysis (see generally Gi......