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. Eric TITMAS, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered April 24, 2006, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sodomy in the first degree in 2001 and ultimately was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. In anticipation of his release from prison, a risk assessment instrument was prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in which defendant was assigned 110 points, thus presumptively placing him at a risk level III classification. Following a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation and defendant was classified a risk level III sex offender, prompting this appeal.1
Defendant contends that County Court improperly assigned an additional 15 points to his risk assessment score for his history of drug and alcohol abuse. We agree. The record reflects that defendant was an occasional user of marihuana, last having smoked that substance seven years prior to County Court's classification, and that he had tried LSD on one occasion six years prior to said classification. The record further reflects that defendant was an occasional user of alcohol. Such evidence does not establish a history of drug or alcohol abuse by clear and convincing evidence (see e.g. People v. Irizarry, 36 A.D.3d 473, 827 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2007]; People v. Collazo, 7 A.D.3d 595, 596, 775 N.Y.S.2d 887 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant is classified as a risk level II sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
FOOTNOTES
1. We reject the People's contention that this appeal is untimely inasmuch as there is no evidence that defendant was served with County Court's order in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 5513(a) (see Matter of Reynolds v. Dustman, 1 N.Y.3d 559, 560, 772 N.Y.S.2d 247, 804 N.E.2d 411 [2003] ).
CREW III, J.
CARDONA, P.J., MUGGLIN, ROSE 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: December 27, 2007
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)