People v. Miguel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miguel

140 A.D.3d 497, 32 N.Y.S.3d 485

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

DecidedJune 14, 2016

Docket1439 4103/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 497 (People v. Miguel) 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. Miguel, 140 A.D.3d 497, 32 N.Y.S.3d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about August 7, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level one sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this appeal from a risk level determination is not subject to dismissal, it does not bring up for review defendant’s claim that his underlying New York felony conviction was not for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. Sex offender certification is part of the judgment of conviction, and the proper occasion for defendant to have challenged that certification was on an appeal from the judgment (see People v Hernandez, 93 NY2d 261, 267 [1999]; People v Smith, 60 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 921 [2009]; compare People v Liden, 19 NY3d 271 [2012] [administrative determination that out-of-state conviction requires registration reviewable in risk level proceeding]), but defendant did not appeal. Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v Baluja (109 AD3d 803 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 856 [2013]) did not address the reviewability issue presented here.

Since the issue is one of reviewability by this Court, it is of no moment that the SORA hearing court and the parties engaged in the essentially academic exercise of litigating the issue of whether defendant was required to register as a sex offender, an issue that had necessarily been decided at his sentencing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about August 7, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level one sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this appeal from a risk level determination is not subject to dismissal, it does not bring up for review defendant’s claim that his underlying New York felony conviction was not for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. Sex offender certification is part of the judgment of conviction, and the proper occasion for defendant to have challenged that certification was on an appeal from the judgment (see People v Hernandez, 93 NY2d 261, 267 [1999]; People v Smith, 60 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 921 [2009]; compare People v Liden, 19 NY3d 271 [2012] [administrative determination that out-of-state conviction requires registration reviewable in risk level proceeding]), but defendant did not appeal. Contrary to defendant’s contention, People v Baluja (109 AD3d 803 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 856 [2013]) did not address the reviewability issue presented here.

Since the issue is one of reviewability by this Court, it is of no moment that the SORA hearing court and the parties engaged in the essentially academic exercise of litigating the issue of whether defendant was required to register as a sex offender, an issue that had necessarily been decided at his sentencing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 497, 32 N.Y.S.3d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miguel-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack