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.
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Barry WIGGINS, Appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated July 18, 2018, which, after a hearing, denied his petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2) to modify his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After the defendant's conviction of a sex offense, he was designated a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA). The defendant thereafter petitioned pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification. In an order dated July 18, 2018, the County Court denied the petition, and the defendant appeals.
Pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2), a sex offender required to register under SORA is permitted to petition annually for modification of his or her risk level classification (see People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d 478, 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847). The sex offender “bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (id. at 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847; see Correction Law § 168–o[2]).
Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden. Although the defendant did not commit any sex offenses in the more than 25 years following his conviction and was active in his church, he was not consistently compliant with the requirement to register as a sex offender, and there is no indication that he participated in any sex offender treatment or that he even accepted responsibility for the offense, which he previously claimed he did not commit despite his plea of guilty. In sum, the defendant did not submit sufficient evidence that conditions had changed since his conviction so as to warrant modification of his risk level (see People v. Falcon, 172 A.D.3d 1116, 98 N.Y.S.3d 455; People v. Hegazy, 170 A.D.3d 899, 900, 93 N.Y.S.3d 868; cf. People v. Davis, 179 A.D.3d 183, 115 N.Y.S.3d 350 [2d Dept. 2019]).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, 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.
Docket No: 2018–10375
Decided: February 13, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)