People v. Cleveland

139 A.D.3d 1270, 31 N.Y.S.3d 678
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2016
Docket519584
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1270 (People v. Cleveland) 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. Cleveland, 139 A.D.3d 1270, 31 N.Y.S.3d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Clark, J.

Appeal from a decision of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), dated June 26, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Defendant reportedly pleaded guilty to criminal charges and was sentenced to a period of probation. 1 The People completed a risk assessment instrument in accordance with the Sex Of *1271 fender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level one sex offender (55 points), and requested an upward departure to a risk level two classification. Following a two-day SORA hearing, County Court ruled that defendant should be classified as a risk level three sex offender. Defendant now appeals.

By statute, County Court is required to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and such order must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a]; see People v Goodwin, 131 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2015]; People v Kemp, 130 AD3d 1132, 1132-1133 [2015]). Here, the record does not reflect that a written order was ever issued or entered and filed, and the risk assessment instrument does not contain “so ordered” language so as to constitute an appealable order (see People v Goodwin, 131 AD3d at 1285; People v Joslyn, 27 AD3d 1033, 1035 [2006]; see also CPLR 5512 [a]). 2 Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before this Court and dismissal is required (see CPLR 5513, 5515 [1]; People v Goodwin, 131 AD3d at 1285; People v Kemp, 130 AD3d at 1132; People v Laurange, 97 AD3d 995, 996 [2012]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

1

. The record on appeal does not contain an accusatory instrument or the plea minutes, or otherwise reflect the precise crime(s) to which defendant reportedly entered a guilty plea.

2

. We note that the minutes of the SORA hearing, which defendant submitted to this Court but are not part of the record, also do not constitute an order (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). While the final page of the minutes appears to have been filed with the Court Clerk’s office, it was not denominated an “order” (CPLR 5512 [a]), was not signed by a judge and does not contain “so ordered” language (see People v Joslyn, 27 AD3d at 1035). Further, the minutes do not reflect that a SORA risk classification order was ever issued by County Court or entered (see CPLR 2220 [a]).

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

Related

People v. Lane
2021 NY Slip Op 07324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. West
2021 NY Slip Op 02027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Porter
2019 NY Slip Op 8743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Head
2018 NY Slip Op 5379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Lockrow
2018 NY Slip Op 3881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Scott
2018 NY Slip Op 203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Cann
2017 NY Slip Op 5479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Horton
142 A.D.3d 1256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.D.3d 1270, 31 N.Y.S.3d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cleveland-nyappdiv-2016.