State v. Clarence D.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | A. GAIL PRUDENTI |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 776,917 N.Y.S.2d 700 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. CLARENCE D. (Anonymous), appellant. |
82 A.D.3d 776
In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent,
v.
CLARENCE D. (Anonymous), appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 1, 2011.
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 (De
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ted B.
...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 article 10 proc......
-
State v. Ted B., 2012-10730.
...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 article 10 proc......
-
State v. Raul L.
...of State of New York v. Andrew J. W., 85 A.D.3d 805, 807, 924 N.Y.S.2d 576; [988 N.Y.S.2d 196]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 that affect......
-
In the Matter of State v. (anonymous)
...rather than be subject to strict and intense supervision ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 777–78, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700; Matter of State of New York v. Steven L., 66 A.D.3d 788, 887 N.Y.S.2d 190). The appellant's remaining contention......
-
State v. Ted B.
...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 article 10 proc......
-
State v. Ted B., 2012-10730.
...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 article 10 proc......
-
State v. Raul L.
...of State of New York v. Andrew J. W., 85 A.D.3d 805, 807, 924 N.Y.S.2d 576; [988 N.Y.S.2d 196]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 that affect......
-
In the Matter of State v. (anonymous)
...rather than be subject to strict and intense supervision ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776, 777–78, 917 N.Y.S.2d 700; Matter of State of New York v. Steven L., 66 A.D.3d 788, 887 N.Y.S.2d 190). The appellant's remaining contention......