People v. Rocktaschel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rocktaschel

2017 NY Slip Op 4617, 151 A.D.3d 1650, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedJune 9, 2017

Docket608 KA 16-01358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4617 (People v. Rocktaschel) 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. Rocktaschel, 2017 NY Slip Op 4617, 151 A.D.3d 1650, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (David W. Foley, A.J.), dated June 20, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion seeking that he be released from the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In 2005, defendant was adjudicated a level one risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). In 2016, he moved pursuant to sections 168-h (1) and 168-o (1) to be released from the SORA registration requirements, and he appeals from an order denying that motion. We affirm.

Defendant is “ineligible for relief from SORA’s registration requirements, as he has not been registered for at least 30 years” (People v Pero, 49 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2008]; see People v Shim, 139 AD3d 68, 72 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 910 [2016]; *1651 see also People v Kindred, 71 AD3d 1418, 1418 [2010]), and he is not a level two risk (see Correction Law § 168-o [1]). Insofar as defendant contends that he should not be required to register pursuant to SORA because he has moved to another state, it is well settled that “the establishment of a residence in another state does not relieve petitioner of his SORA registration obligations” (Matter of Doe v O’Donnell, 86 AD3d 238, 242 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; see People v Melzer, 89 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 803 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 954 [2012]). Defendant’s constitutional challenges to SORA are not properly before us because there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice (see Executive Law § 71; People v Jewell, 119 AD3d 1446, 1448 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 905 [2014]; People v McKeehan, 2 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 644 [2004]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (David W. Foley, A.J.), dated June 20, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion seeking that he be released from the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In 2005, defendant was adjudicated a level one risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). In 2016, he moved pursuant to sections 168-h (1) and 168-o (1) to be released from the SORA registration requirements, and he appeals from an order denying that motion. We affirm.

Defendant is “ineligible for relief from SORA’s registration requirements, as he has not been registered for at least 30 years” (People v Pero, 49 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2008]; see People v Shim, 139 AD3d 68, 72 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 910 [2016]; *1651 see also People v Kindred, 71 AD3d 1418, 1418 [2010]), and he is not a level two risk (see Correction Law § 168-o [1]). Insofar as defendant contends that he should not be required to register pursuant to SORA because he has moved to another state, it is well settled that “the establishment of a residence in another state does not relieve petitioner of his SORA registration obligations” (Matter of Doe v O’Donnell, 86 AD3d 238, 242 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; see People v Melzer, 89 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 803 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 954 [2012]). Defendant’s constitutional challenges to SORA are not properly before us because there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice (see Executive Law § 71; People v Jewell, 119 AD3d 1446, 1448 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 905 [2014]; People v McKeehan, 2 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 644 [2004]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4617, 151 A.D.3d 1650, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rocktaschel-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack