Published on:

by

In this case the defendant denies charges of child endangerment despite being found drunk and unconscious with two young children she was supposed to be caring for.

Early one morning a police sergeant found defendant Perez in the back seat of a cab with two infant children next to her.  Perez was unconscious and appeared to be intoxicated.  She was arrested and charged with two misdemeanor counts of endangering a child under N.Y. Pen. Law § 260.10(1) and (2).  Despite the observation of the police sergeant who found her, Perez filed a motion to dismiss the changes, arguing that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case of child endangerment.

The charges against Perez are based largely on the observations of the police sergeant who found Perez slumped over in the back seat of a cab.  When the sergeant called out to her, she eventually woke up.  Her eyes were watery and bloodshot, she smelled of alcohol, she was unsteady on her feet, and she slurred when she spoke.  When the sergeant asked about the two children she seemed to have forgotten that they were with her.  She responded, “What kids? I don’t have any kids with me.”  The children appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old.

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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).

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(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.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(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).

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(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 5th 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 [4th Dept. 2009].

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information