Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James PIERCE, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 17, 2006

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, J.P., KEHOE, MARTOCHE, GREEN, AND HAYES, JJ. Shirley A. Gorman, Albion, for Defendant-Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.).   The sole contention of defendant on appeal is that County Court erred in assessing 20 points against him based on the fact that his offenses constituted a “[c]ontinuing course of sexual misconduct.”   That contention is raised for the first time on appeal, however, and thus is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Sinclair, 23 A.D.3d 537, 806 N.Y.S.2d 609, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 707, 812 N.Y.S.2d 36, 845 N.E.2d 468, citing People v. Cureton, 299 A.D.2d 532, 750 N.Y.S.2d 506, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 627, 760 N.Y.S.2d 108, 790 N.E.2d 282;  People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271, 272, 739 N.Y.S.2d 694, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 169, 780 N.E.2d 980).   We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention (see People v. Santiago, 20 A.D.3d 885, 886, 798 N.Y.S.2d 612).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.