People v. Willette
| Decision Date | 03 January 2002 |
| Citation | 290 A.D.2d 576,735 N.Y.S.2d 645 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>STEVEN J. WILLETTE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In February 1996, defendant, on parole following his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, became subject to the recently enacted Sex Offender Registration Act (see, Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter the Act]). Designated thereafter by the Division of Parole as a level three offender (see, Correction Law § 168-l [6] [c]), defendant was required to register annually with the Division of Criminal Justice Services for a 10-year period, advise of any change of residence, and verify his residence with local police authorities every 90 days (see, Correction Law § 168-f [4]; § 168-h). Notably, had defendant been designated a level one or two offender, he would not have been subject to the 90-day verification rule (see, Correction Law § 168-h).
Between May 15, 1997 and November 14, 1998, defendant represented that he resided with his father in Redford, Clinton County, and provided written verification thereof to the County Sheriff's Department in accordance with relevant statutory requirements. Subsequent investigation revealed, however, that defendant had been living at a different address, prompting his arrest and later indictment for the crime of offering of a false instrument for filing in the first degree (five counts) (see, Penal Law § 175.35). It was asserted that he knowingly failed to properly list his residence on five separate filings made with the Sheriff. Defendant was also charged with a failure to have properly registered under the Act (five counts) (see, Correction Law § 168-t) when he did not inform local police authorities of his new address pursuant to Correction Law § 168-f (4). Following a trial in which 8 of the 10 counts were submitted to the jury, defendant was convicted of all charges. This appeal ensued.
Defendant contends that the failure to have afforded him due process in his designation as a level three offender renders the designation a nullity which voids the indictment underlying his convictions. We disagree by concluding that this constitutional infirmity (see, People v David W., 95 NY2d 130, 137) does not impact upon the validity of the criminal convictions being reviewed. While defendant properly preserved this challenge, both the People and County Court emphasized that he was not prosecuted for a failure to report as a level three offender; rather, he was prosecuted for a failure to report his change of address and for his filing of false instruments. To be sure, defendant's conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree required his registration as a sex offender under the Act. Even if he had been designated a level one offender, he would still have been obligated to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahoney v. State
...was required to file such instrument is irrelevant to the determination that the instrument filed was false" (People v. Willette, 290 A.D.2d 576, 578, 735 N.Y.S.2d 645 [2002], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 763, 742 N.Y.S.2d 624, 769 N.E.2d 370 [2002] ; see People v. Isakov, 120 A.D.3d 589, 591, 990 ......
-
Willette v. Fischer
..."cumulative" since the State had alleged that his residence in the Turner home was continuous. Brief of Appellant at 7, People v. Willette, 290 A.D.2d 576, 735 N.Y.S.2d 645 (App. Div.2002). Although the Appellate Division agreed that Willette's risk level determination was "constitutional[l......
-
People v. Falcon
...and 168–t, even assuming that the defendant's level three classification was made in violation of due process (see People v. Willette, 290 A.D.2d 576, 577–578, 735 N.Y.S.2d 645 ). Accordingly, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion t......
- People v. Brennan