People v. Stein

• Decision Date: 13 May 2021
• Docket Number: 528538, 531079
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jacob STEIN, Appellant.

194 A.D.3d 1201

148 N.Y.S.3d 522

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jacob STEIN, Appellant.

528538, 531079

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 16, 2021

Decided and Entered: May 13, 2021

Langone & Associates, PLLC, Garden City (Richard M. Langone of counsel), for appellant.

Meagan K. Galligan, District Attorney, Monticello (Leigh G. Wellington of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered July 30, 2018, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender and designated him as a sexual predator pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, and (2) from an order of said court, entered August 14, 2019, which denied defendant's application pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o (2) for reclassification of his sex offender risk level status.

Defendant pleaded guilty to offenses that included possessing a sexual performance by a child (three counts) in 2015, and he was sentenced to a total of 3½ to 10 years in prison. As his 2018 release from prison neared, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C) that assessed defendant a total of 30 points, placing him in the risk level one category. The Board nevertheless observed that defendant had been clinically diagnosed with pedophilia disorder in a 2015 report, a disorder that impaired his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior and therefore warranted a presumptive override to the risk level three category. Following a hearing, County Court issued an order, entered in July 2018, adjudicating defendant as a risk level three sex offender and designating him a sexual predator. Defendant thereafter sought a reduction in his risk level classification pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o (2). County Court obtained an updated recommendation from the Board and then, in an order entered in August 2019, denied the application. Defendant appeals from the July 2018 and August 2019 orders.

Dealing first with the July 2018 order, we agree with the parties that County Court erred in designating defendant as a sexual predator and therefore modify the order to delete that designation (see Correction Law § 168–a [3], [7][a] ; People v. Briscoe, 172 A.D.3d 1788, 1789, 99 N.Y.S.3d 508 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 902, 2019 WL 5445886 [2019] ). We reject defendant's further argument that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in the leadup to the order's issuance.

Defendant bases his ineffective assistance claim upon defense counsel's failure to more vigorously challenge the 2015 report, but that report arose out of a court-ordered mental health evaluation, was endorsed by a licensed clinical social worker and another mental health professional (see Education Law § 7701[2][a] ), and was cited extensively in both the presentence investigation report and the Board's case summary. County Court was accordingly correct in deeming the 2015 report to be admissible "reliable hearsay" ( Correction Law § 168–n [3] ; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009] ; People v. Farrell, 78 A.D.3d 1454, 1455, 912 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2010] ), and defense counsel cannot be faulted for eschewing additional attacks on its admissibility that stood "little or no chance of success" and instead challenging the relevance of its contents ( People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see generally People v. Madrid, 88 A.D.3d 674, 675, 930 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2011] ). Defense counsel pursued that course in a prudent manner, pointing out inaccuracies in the 2015 report, noting testing results showing that defendant was unlikely to reoffend, and stressing that the report's conclusions were in doubt because defendant had successfully completed sex offender treatment while imprisoned.¹ The record as a whole accordingly reflects that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Lightaul, 138 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 30 N.Y.S.3d 739 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 907, 2016 WL 6433279 [2016] ).

Turning to the August 2019 order denying defendant's application for reclassification, it was his burden "to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the requested modification [was] warranted, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion" ( People v. Anthony, 171 A.D.3d 1412, 1413, 99 N.Y.S.3d 115 [2019] ; see Correction Law § 168–o [2] ; People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d 478, 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 [2015] ). County Court correctly rejected defendant's efforts to relitigate various issues addressed in the 2018 order, as an application for reclassification is not "a vehicle for reviewing whether [a] defendant's circumstances were properly analyzed in the first instance to arrive at his [or her] risk level" ( People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 140, 711...