People v. Davis

300 A.D.2d 1037, 751 N.Y.S.2d 922
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Onondaga County Court (Fahey, J.), entered August 6, 2002, which determined defendant to be a level three sex offender.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: At a hearing held pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), County Court erred in refusing to permit defendant to introduce evidence on the issue whether “the risk of repeat offense is high and there exists a threat to the public safety” (§ 168-¿ [6] [c]). In making its determination, the court “shall review * * * any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” (§ 168-n [3]). We thus reverse the order and remit the matter to Onondaga County Court for a new hearing. Defendant’s constitutional challenges to SORA made for the first time on [1038]*1038appeal in the pro se supplemental brief are not preserved for our review (see People v Lyday, 241 AD2d 950). Present— Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Davis, 300 A.D.2d 1037, 751 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

300 A.D.2d 1037 (People v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Frank
37 A.D.3d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Davis
17 A.D.3d 1155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Peterson
8 A.D.3d 1124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)