Opinion
No. 570068/18
05-21-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harvens Brunache, Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., James, Perez, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (David Frey, J.), entered December 15, 2017, which adjudicated him a level three predicate sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA")(Correction Law art.6-C).
Order (David Frey, J.), entered December 15, 2017, affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to defer adjudication of defendant's sex offender classification (see People v Boone, - N.Y.3d -, 2024 NY Slip Op 00928 *3 [2024]; see also People v Dufresne, 209 A.D.3d 541 [2022], affd - N.Y.3d -, 2024 NY Slip Op 02084 [2024]). Defendant's transfer from the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections, following the completion of his sentence for the underlying sex offense, to the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, where he would be held on bail awaiting sentencing on an unrelated conviction, constituted a "release" within the meaning of SORA. Under the statute's plain language, the registration requirements are triggered upon "release from any state or local correctional facility, hospital or institution" (Correction Law § 168-f[1][a]), without regard to whether an inmate will be subject to supervision or incarceration in another jurisdiction (see People v Worrell, 221 A.D.3d 542 [2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 904 [2024]; People v Staley, 104 A.D.3d 583 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857 [2013]). "[N]owhere in the statute does SORA require delaying a risk level classification hearing or a final SORA adjudication until an offender's reentry into the community is assured... [and] by listing the specific facilities, release from which triggers various SORA obligations, rather than simply stating that 'release into the community' does so, the legislature made clear its intent" (People v Boone, - N.Y.3d -, 2024 NY Slip Op 00928 *4 [2024]).
We note, also, that defendant does not challenge the Level three classification, based upon the presumptive override for his prior felony sex crime conviction, nor argue that he should receive a downward departure. Under the circumstances, the possibility that the court would be in a better position to decide the risk assessment issue at the completion of defendant's sentence in the unrelated case is speculative. In any event, defendant has the statutory right to seek a modification of his SORA risk level designation in the future (see Correction Law § 168-o).