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. Darrel R. FIENE, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.), entered January 11, 2008, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with rape in the second degree and rape in the third degree, and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of 3 1/212 to 7 years. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that defendant be classified as a risk level III sex offender and, following a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation. This appeal by defendant ensued.
We affirm. Preliminarily, we note that defendant failed to challenge any of the points assessed on the risk assessment instrument, raised no objection to the proof submitted at the hearing and elected not to offer any testimony or other evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, defendant has failed to preserve his present challenges to his risk level classification for our review (see People v. Coleman, 45 A.D.3d 1118, 846 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 705, 857 N.Y.S.2d 38, 886 N.E.2d 803 [2008]; People v. Pierce, 27 A.D.3d 1182, 811 N.Y.S.2d 541 [2006] ). In any event, contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court's analysis of the various risk factors and its resulting findings of fact and conclusions of law were more than adequate. Similarly unpersuasive is defendant's claim that the proof submitted at the hearing-namely, the risk assessment instrument-should have been the subject of a Frye hearing (see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 [1923] ). Simply put, neither the risk assessment instrument, the presentence investigation report nor the case summary requires expert testimony to explain or understand their respective uses. Accordingly, we decline to disturb County Court's classification of defendant as a risk level III sex offender.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
MALONE JR., J.
PETERS, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN and KANE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: November 13, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)