Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ANDRES AYALA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level one risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in determining that he is subject to SORA's registration requirements because the record establishes that he poses no risk of reoffense. We reject that contention. “SORA requires defendant to register based upon his conviction of an enumerated sex offense, not because of his level of dangerousness” (People v. Hood, 16 AD3d 778, 779, lv. denied 4 NY3d 853; see generally People v. Knox, 12 NY3d 60, 65, cert denied _ U.S. _, 130 S Ct 552). Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (3), defendant is a sexually violent offender by virtue of his 1986 conviction of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.50[1] ), and SORA does not “include a ‘no risk’ category that exempts purportedly nondangerous offenders from having to register” (Hood, 16 AD3d at 779).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that he was provided effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing (see People v. Carey, 47 AD3d 1079, 1080, lv denied 10 NY3d 893). Defendant's contentions concerning the underlying conviction and the appeal from that judgment of conviction are not properly before us on this appeal from the order determining his risk level, inasmuch as the SORA determination is not part of the criminal action (see People v. Wright, 53 AD3d 963, lv denied 11 NY3d 710).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: KA 08-01055
Decided: April 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)