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. WILLIAM PICHCUSKIE, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an oral decision determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). In the exercise of our discretion, we deem the appeal as properly taken from the order that was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5520[c]; see generally Adams v. Daughtery, _ AD3d _, _ [Oct. 4, 2013] ). Contrary to defendant's contention in his main brief, County Court properly determined after a SORA hearing that an upward departure was warranted based upon a videotaped statement of a victim and the affidavit of another person who described defendant's victimization of him when he was between the ages of 12 and 16. We reject defendant's contention in his main brief that the affidavit was improperly admitted at the hearing because he was never charged with the conduct specified in the affidavit, which we note was conduct that was reported after the statute of limitations had run. Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36), concerning a defendant's right to confront witnesses, does not apply in SORA hearings (see People v. Bolton, 50 AD3d 990, 990, lv denied 11 NY3d 701; People v. Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25, lv denied 4 NY3d 885), and an out-of-court statement of a victim constitutes reliable hearsay in SORA hearings (see generally People v. Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572–574). We reject defendant's further contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 20 points against him for fostering a relationship with the victim in the videotaped statement for the purpose of victimizing him. That assessment of points is supported by the reliable hearsay contained in the victim's videotaped statement admitted at the hearing (see generally id. at 572–573). We reject defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing (see People v. Rotterman, 96 AD3d 1467, 1468, lv. denied 19 NY3d 813; People v. Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 181, lv denied 18 NY3d 807; see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Finally, defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he should be a level one sex offender is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and we therefore do not address it (see People v. Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 12–01479
Decided: November 08, 2013
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)