People v. Beliard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beliard

139 A.D.3d 1267, 30 N.Y.S.3d 588

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket518815

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1267 (People v. Beliard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Beliard, 139 A.D.3d 1267, 30 N.Y.S.3d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*1268 Devine, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree, attempted sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument presumptively classifying defendant as a risk level two sex offender (105 points) and recommended against a departure. Following hearings, County Court adopted the Board’s risk level scoring and classified him as a risk level two sex offender. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court should have ordered a hearing as to defendant’s competence to participate in the risk assessment hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30. Assuming without deciding that a court’s duty to order a competency hearing is applicable to risk level determinations pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (but see CPL 730.30 [1]), we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s failure to order such a hearing here. No hearing was requested and, although defendant was uncooperative, argumentative and evasive in his responses to County Court’s questions during the hearings, he denied ever being treated for any mental illness or condition and his behavior did not raise a reasonable belief that he was unable to understand the proceedings or assist in the determination of his risk assessment level as to require a competency hearing (see People v Yu-Jen Chang, 92 AD3d 1132, 1134-1135 [2012]; People v Hood, 35 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; see also United States v Neal, 776 F3d 645, 658-659 [9th Cir 2015]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1268 Devine, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree, attempted sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument presumptively classifying defendant as a risk level two sex offender (105 points) and recommended against a departure. Following hearings, County Court adopted the Board’s risk level scoring and classified him as a risk level two sex offender. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court should have ordered a hearing as to defendant’s competence to participate in the risk assessment hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30. Assuming without deciding that a court’s duty to order a competency hearing is applicable to risk level determinations pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (but see CPL 730.30 [1]), we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s failure to order such a hearing here. No hearing was requested and, although defendant was uncooperative, argumentative and evasive in his responses to County Court’s questions during the hearings, he denied ever being treated for any mental illness or condition and his behavior did not raise a reasonable belief that he was unable to understand the proceedings or assist in the determination of his risk assessment level as to require a competency hearing (see People v Yu-Jen Chang, 92 AD3d 1132, 1134-1135 [2012]; People v Hood, 35 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; see also United States v Neal, 776 F3d 645, 658-659 [9th Cir 2015]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1267, 30 N.Y.S.3d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beliard-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack