State v. Clarence D.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 776,917 N.Y.S.2d 700 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. CLARENCE D. (Anonymous), appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Lesley DeLia, Rachael E. Seevers, and Dennis B. Feld of counsel; Timonthy M. Riselvato on the brief), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin Gutman and Marion R. Buchbinder of counsel), for respondent.
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., RANDALL T. ENG, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Clarence D., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), dated December 22, 2009, which, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he currently is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
This appeal arises from a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, also known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (hereinafter SOMTA). The appellant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, based on a rape that occurred in March 1996. The appellant was sentenced to 7 years of incarceration. At the same time, he was also sentenced to a 7-to-14 year indeterminate concurrent term of incarceration for an arson he had committed in 1994.
The appellant completed his sentence on the sexual abuse conviction in March 2003, but remained in prison on the arson conviction. As the date of the appellant's possible release date drew near, the State Commissioner of Mental Health appointed a Case Review Team to perform an evaluation ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05[a], [d], [e] ). Based on the Case Review Team's report, the Attorney General filed the instant petition for civil management of the appellant pursuant to SOMTA.
The Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [a], [b] ), after which it found that the appellant was a "detained sex offender" under SOMTA and suffers from a "mental abnormality" as that phrase is defined in SOMTA ( see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.07[d], 10.03[g], [i] ). Thereafter, the Supreme Court conducted a dispositional hearing, after which it determined that the appellant was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and ordered such confinement ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f] ).
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809; 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v. AutoZone, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 983, 984, 898 N.Y.S.2d 171; see also Matter of Jeremiah S. [New York State Commr. of Mental Health], 69 A.D.3d 730, 732, 893 N.Y.S.2d 197).
The trial evidence supports the Supreme Court's determination that the appellant suffers from a "mental abnormality." SOMTA defines "mental abnormality" as "a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i] ).
At...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ted B.
...sex offender requiring confinement ( see id.; State v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 58–60, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190; Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 777, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700). Next, Ted B. contends that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 affords an absolute right to a jury trial in an ar......
-
State v. Ted B.
...sex offender requiring confinement (see id.; State v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 58–60, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 777, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700 ).Next, Ted B. contends that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 affords an absolute right to a jury trial in an ar......
-
State v. Raul L.
...828, 964 N.Y.S.2d 591;Matter of State of New York v. Andrew J. W., 85 A.D.3d 805, 807, 924 N.Y.S.2d 576;Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700). A “[m]ental abnormality” is statutorily defined as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder t......
-
State v. Carl S.
...is defined in article 10, requiring that he be civilly confined (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ; Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 777–778, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700 ; Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d at 1252, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195 ).The appellant's content......