Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

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.

(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.

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 1^st 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.

Decision

The is an appeal by the defendant of a decision that was entered in Dutchess County on 5/27/2015. The defendant was found guilty of 6 counts of a criminal sexual act in the 3d degree, 3d degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. This appeal addresses the denial of an omnibus motion to suppress his statements of law to the police.

The judgment is affirmed.

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 defendant made his motion via Correction Law 168-a(2)(e) which states that a conviction of unlawful surveillance in the 2^nd (Penal Law 250.45(2), (3), or (4) is considered a sex offense. The caveat with this interpretation of the law is that it applies unless the application would be considered “unduly harsh.”  The court argues that this motion can only be brought before the trial court prior to determining whether the defendant is a sex offender.

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 man, who is an inmate at the correctional facility, is challenging his opponents about their failure to place him in a sex offender counseling and treatment program. The court then issued an order to show cause, and has received and reviewed the opponent’s answer and return, as well as the man’s reply.

In response to its letter order, the court has also received and reviewed an additional set of exhibits, submitted on behalf of the man’s opponents.

Continue reading

Continue reading

Defendant is charged with violations of Stalking in the Fourth Degree, Harassment in the Second Degree, Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree. The incidents that led to these charges concern telephone calls Defendant made to the complaining witness, a woman with whom Defendant had a dating relationship, in which Defendant allegedly threatened the complaining witness.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that defendant now moves to dismiss these charges pursuant to CPL 170.40 in the interests of justice. CPL 170.40 permits dismissal of an information, even though there is no legal basis for such dismissal, as a matter of judicial discretion “by the existence of some compelling factor” that clearly demonstrates that conviction “would constitute or result in injustice.” CPL 170.40 enumerates certain factors that the court must examine and consider in reaching its determination.

Continue reading