People v. G.
2018 NY Slip Op. 02803
April 25, 2018
People v. G.
2018 NY Slip Op. 02803
April 25, 2018
People for the State of New York v. T.W.
NY Slip Op. 02210
When T was a minor, she and another man sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. She plead guilty to 1st Degree sexual abuse (a Class D Felony). The Supreme Court said that in the interest of justice, her conviction should be vacated, and she should be sentenced under Penal Law 60.02. She received 10 years probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence exceeded the maximum for an undesignated Class E Felony.
2018 NY Slip Op 02488
April 11, 2018
2018 NY Slip 00005
By order of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, which heard a case against the defendant who is a level 1 sex offender. The case was unanimously affirmed.
The question before the court was whether the defendant should be required to register as a level one sex offender due to his conviction, because of unlawful surveillance by the defendant. The defendant was accused of making cell phone videos under women’s dresses on the subway. The matter is appealable but the issue the defendant raises isn’t triable.
The question before the court is whether the people have established through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a stranger to the victim at the time of the rape. The answer will determine whether he is a Level 2 sex offender based on the facts, the court says yes.
On February 21, 2017 the defendant plead guilty to rape in the 3d degree pursuant to Penal Law 130.25(3). He was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to incarceration for 1 ½ years in state prison followed by 6 years of probation. He was released on June 20, 2017. The Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders recommend the court adjudicate defendant a level 2 sex offender based on various risk factors. One risk factor is challenged, risk factor number 7, which is the relationship of the defendant and the rape victim. The defendant introduced evidence that he and the victim were acquainted. The court says he is wrong.
The court agrees with the police report that the defendant was a stranger to the victim, who was 13 years old at the time and the defendant was 25. The victim and her classmate ditched school and took a subway to the Bronx. Her classmate met a male friend there, and the 3 “hung out” for awhile. The victim was the left alone in the defendant’s apartment and was raped during this time.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is a proceeding wherein the defendant who pleads guilty to Rape in the Third Degree under Penal Law § 130.25 by way of an Alford-Serrano 2 plea, notwithstanding his claims of innocence, is convicted of a felony. As a result, he is subject to the collateral consequences of that conviction to include being classified under the Sex Offender Registration Act and being subject to take an HIV test upon the request of the victim.
In 2004, the defendant was indicted in a twenty-eight count indictment charging that he engaged in sexual relations with his 15 year old daughter, during a three month period.
This is a proceeding wherein the State of New York moves to establish probable cause to believe that O.V. is a “sex offender requiring civil management” pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, § 10.06 (k).
O.V. opposes the motion.
Respondents filed a cross motion to dismiss petitioner’s Article 78 petition. Petitioner filed an Article 78 petition to vacate the determination by respondents that he is a “sex offender,” as defined by Correction Law § 168-a (2) and directing that petitioner be removed from the sex offender registry.
A New York Sex Crimes attorney said that Petitioner is currently a prisoner incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, which is located in Seneca County. He is serving a five-year sentence based on his conviction by his plea of guilty to robbery. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested in the State of Washington and charged with the crimes of rape and kidnaping in the first degree. The arrest report designates the ages of the victims as 16 and 17. Petitioner entered into an “Alford” plea to two counts of unlawful imprisonment. Petitioner was sentenced to eight months of prison time for each count, plus a year of community supervision.
In 1994, the petitioner entered a guilty plea as charged in an indictment to first degree aggravated sexual assault of a child, a felony stemming from charges he subjected a 10-year-old relative to sexual contact on several occasions. The court, acting in its discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure, imposed a deferred adjudication of guilt, suspended imposition of a prison sentence, and placed the petitioner under the maximum 10-year term of community supervision, akin to probation, with 26 terms and conditions, and community service. As a result of the plea, he is required to annually register as a sex offender, for life.
After the petitioner moved to New York, the respondent Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders notified him by letter that he was required to register in New York under the Sex Offender Registration Act based upon that his Texas felony sex offense for which he was required to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction. Additionally, the respondent Division of Criminal Justice Services notified him by letter that he was also required to register any Internet accounts (with service providers) belonging to him and any e-mail addresses and screen names used by him for Internet chats, social networking or instant messaging. In June 2008, the Board completed a risk level assessment of the petitioner, and made a risk level recommendation to the court in New York County, the county of the petitioner’s residence.
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant moves pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction on the grounds that, unbeknownst to Defendant, the complainant had recanted her accusation both to the court and the district attorney’s office prior to the entry of Defendant’s plea of guilty, and the prosecutor’s failure to disclose this information constituted a Brady violation; that such recantation constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting vacatur of the conviction; that Defendant’s plea of guilty was involuntary because he was not aware that he would be required to register as a sex offender; and that his counsel was ineffective in that he prevented the judge at arraignment from dismissing the charges.
A Kings Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, in their affirmation in opposition to Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment, the People assert that in preparing their response to the motion, they learned that the files of the District Attorney’s office pertaining to this case have been destroyed and that the court file has been lost and is therefore unavailable. The People were, however, able to obtain the pre-sentence report. The People’s affirmation is based on information from records and files of the New York State Division of Parole, the New York City Police Department, the Florida Sex Offender Registry, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, and upon conversations with individuals from the U.S. Attorney’s office, the NYS Office of Sex Offender Management and the NYS Department of Correctional Services.