People v. Warrington, 15509.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | 15509. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 05341,797 N.Y.S.2d 622,19 A.D.3d 881 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DUANE L. WARRINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), entered April 16, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and was sentenced in October 1982, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 12½ to 25 years. In anticipation of his release from incarceration, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that defendant be classified as a level III risk and issued a case summary detailing defendant's crime. While defendant was still incarcerated, County Court sent him a written notice of the date and time of the hearing that would be held to determine his sex offender risk level, along with a copy of the Board's recommendation.
At the hearing, County Court confirmed that defendant had been notified of the proceeding and noted that "the facility [where defendant was then incarcerated] did send back a reply indicating that [defendant] did not wish to appear." Defendant's attorney did not dispute County Court's statement that defendant had been notified. County Court adopted the Board's assessment and declared defendant a risk level III sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court proceeded with the hearing in his absence without verifying that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present. He specifically argues that there is no indication in the record that he personally received the notice of the proceeding. However, as no objection was raised on this ground in County Court, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Campbell, 279 AD2d 715, 716 [2001]), and we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the issue in this case.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Poleun
...constituted a violation of due process ( see People v. Wall, 112 A.D.3d 900, 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 394;see also People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 882, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622;see generally People v. Charache, 9 N.Y.3d 829, 830, 841 N.Y.S.2d 223, 873 N.E.2d 267). In any event, we conclude that defen......
-
People v. Wall
...review because the defendant's counsel, who represented him at the hearing, did not object ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622). In any event, the contention is without merit. “Where it is clear that the defendant's absence is deliberate, despite knowl......
-
People v. Barney, 2017–11245
...no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forgo his presence at the hearing (cf. People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622 ). The fact that defense counsel had "no evidence to indicate" that the defendant did not receive notice of the hearing wa......
-
People v. Sorto
...the hearing in the defendant's absence (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Wall, 112 A.D.3d 900, 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 394 ; People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622 ). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's contention is without merit, as he forfeited his ......