From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Millan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 2002
295 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

June 27, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Stone, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2001, which adjudicated defendant a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.) and required him to register as a risk level one sex offender in New York State, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated.

Before: Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.


The People argue here for the first time that defendant's federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (a)(2) and (b)(1), an attempt to knowingly receive or distribute child pornography or material containing child pornography, more closely resembles Penal Law § 263.15, promoting a sexual performance by a child, a class D felony, than Penal Law § 263.16, possessing a sexual performance by a child, a class E felony. The latter was determined, after a hearing and in accordance with the views at the time of the People and defendant, to be the analogous New York law, and that Penal Law § 110.05 provides that an attempt to commit either of the New York offenses at issue would be classified as one grade lower than the offense itself. Thus, under the court's determination that the class E felony was the analogous crime, defendant would not have to register, because an attempt to committ a class E felony is a class A misdemeanor.

The People's argument is not preserved for our review. Defendant had no opportunity to rebut it before the hearing court, since it was not raised at the hearing or discussed in the hearing court's decision (see, People v. More, 97 N.Y.2d 209, 214; People v. Chavis, 91 N.Y.2d 500, 506; People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 416). As a consequence, we are constrained to find that defendant's federal convistion is not a felony conviction requiring registration under SORA, since the analogous New York offense was, in effect, found to be the class A misdemeanor, attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child (Penal Law §§ 110.05. 263.16).


Summaries of

People v. Millan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 2002
295 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Millan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BERNARD MILLAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 27, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

State v. Winn

{23} In so concluding, we also reject the State’s reliance upon State v. Lloyd , 132 Ohio St. 3d 135,…

People v. Tolbert

Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of this case, the matter is remanded for the parties to make…