New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: October 8, 2019

Sex Offender Petitions the Court to Lower His SORA Risk Level – People v. Simmons, 170 A.D.3d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case looks at how the court determines the sex offender status of a convicted felon. Under New York’s New York Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), sometimes referred to as Megan’s Law, those who are convicted of most sex crimes and other serious felonies are required to register with the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for at least 20 years.

Those who are required to register are classified into one of three different risk levels. The restrictions that are placed on registrants and the length of registration depend on the registration level. A Level 1 classification is given to offenders who present the lowest level of risk of reoffending while Level 3 is given to those who present the highest level of risk of reoffending. Risk levels can be raised or lowered. For example, if an offender commits another crime or violates probation or parole, the court may raise the offender’s risk level. If an offender feels that his (or her) risk level should be lower, he can request a hearing to request that the court lower his risk level. An offender can even request that the court completely relieve him from the registration requirements.

In Simmons, the defendant was convicted of attempted rape in the first degree and two counts of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Prior to his release from prison, a hearing was held regarding his sex offender registration status. The defendant was designated a level 3 sex offender. He received this designation because of the “presumptive override” that was applicable in his case because his crime resulted in the death of the victim.

Published on: October 7, 2019

Defendant Challenges Multiple Sex Offense Charges in NY Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Y

Decision

This is an appeal by the defendant from a Supreme Court judgment, which was decided on February 7, 2013. The defendant was convicted of first degree sexual conduct against a child (3 counts), second degree sexual conduct against a child (two counts), second degree criminal sexual acts (16 counts), second degree sexual abuse (27 counts), third-degree sexual abuse (24 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (3 counts).

Published on: August 29, 2019

New York Appellate Court Discusses Internet Access for Level 3 Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Ellis

In this case the People assert that the defendant is a level 3 sex offender. Because of this, he was required, pursuant to Corrections Law 168-7(4), to register his Facebook account. The law specifies that it must be done no later than 10 days after a change of address or internet identifiers. Internet identifiers are defined as any electronic mail addresses or designations used to chat, for instant messaging, social media or other internet communication (Corrections Law 168-a[18]. Failure to register is considered a class E felony for the first offense, and the second offense is a class D felony.

The defendant filled out his annual verification form. This form required him to disclose internet information such as his screen name, service provider, and email address. While he disclosed the identifier on his Facebook account, he didn’t disclose that he had a Facebook account. He was charged with a violation of Corrections Law 168-f (4) on the premise that he didn’t disclose the account as an internet identifier.

Published on: April 26, 2019

New York Appellate Court Reverses and Dismisses Case Based on Defendant Alleging Lack of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

(Matter of N. v NY Office of Children & Family Services, NY Slip Op 04379)

June 18, 2018

The court rules that this decision should be reversed, and the petition dismissed without costs. Despite the defendant’s argument, the court does indeed have jurisdiction over this appeal considering the dual dissent of the appellate decision is a question of law ( CPLR 5601), Matter of Kelly v Safir 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]. The question the courts must determine is whether there is a rational reason for the action, or whether it is arbitrary (Matter of Peckham v Calogero 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]. The court remarked that an arbitrary action is without a sound reason or basis, and is often made without consideration of the facts involved. If the reviewing court finds there is a rational basis, the reviewing court must sustain the determination even if the court believes it would have achieved a different result.

Published on: February 8, 2019

New York Appellate Court Reverses Decision and Orders New Trial Regarding Use of Justification Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

(People v. A., NY Slip Op 00894)

This is an appeal from a Supreme Court decision dated 8/26/15, convicting the defendant of assault in the first degree.

The court ordered that the judgment be reversed and a new trial is ordered.

Published on: January 6, 2019

New York Appellate Court Affirms Decision Ruling That Evidence Was Sufficient to Convict Defendant of Child Endangerment

by Stephen Bilkis

(People v. C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08951)

Dec. 26, 2018

The defendant appealed from a judgment from Rockland County Court (June 10, 2015), where he was found guilty of endangering the welfare of a child and sexual assault against a child.

Published on: December 18, 2018

New York Appellate Court Rules that Grand Jury Can’t Readdress Issue After Being Dismissed in Prior Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

(People v. DA, NY Slip Op 08537)

December 13, 2018

In this case, the court weighs the question regarding whether the grand jury can readdress a charge that has been presented to it after it had been dismissed in a prior proceeding. The court held that a charge may not be resubmitted to another grand jury pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 190.75(3).

Published on: November 17, 2018

New York Appellate Court Affirms Sentence for Defendant Claiming Ineffective Counsel in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

(The People of the State of New York v. M.M.)

The defendant filed this appeal regarding his guilty plea of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 5^th degree. The court initially agreed with the defendant that his waiver of an appeal was invalid.

The defendant argues that the court failed to assign him new counsel at his sentencing hearing. The court disagrees. The court states that this argument is invalid because the defendant didn’t make an adequate case asking for new counsel. Therefore, the court didn’t err in failing to conduct an inquiry whether good cause was shown to substitute counsel (People v Mathews 142 AD3d 1354, People v Singletury 63 AD3d 1654, 1655 [4^th Dept. 2009].