Opinion
1221 KA 04–02539
01-31-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kyle E. MILLER, Defendant–Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. LORI P. RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
LORI P. RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant's risk level determination made by Cattaraugus County Court pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act is vacated.
Memorandum: In 2001, defendant was convicted in Cattaraugus County Court upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the second degree and, that same year, he was convicted in Allegany County Court upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree. The convictions stemmed from a course of conduct against one victim that occurred in both jurisdictions. Defendant was sentenced in both cases and, prior to his release from prison, Allegany County Court held a proceeding to determine his risk level designation under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) ( Correction Law § 168 et seq. ) and designated him a level two risk. Cattaraugus County Court subsequently held a SORA proceeding utilizing a risk assessment instrument (RAI) and case summary that were substantively identical to those used in the Allegany County SORA proceeding, but designated defendant a level three risk. On a prior appeal ( People v. Miller , 37 A.D.3d 1071, 829 N.Y.S.2d 345 (4th Dept. 2007) ), we affirmed the order of Cattaraugus County Court designating him a level three risk. We subsequently granted defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis ( People v. Miller , 169 A.D.3d 1460, 91 N.Y.S.3d 736 (4th Dept. 2019) ), and we vacated our prior order. We now consider the appeal de novo.
"Where, as here, a single RAI addressing all relevant conduct is prepared, the goal of assessing the risk posed by the offender is fulfilled by a single SORA adjudication. To hold otherwise—that is, to permit multiple risk level determinations based on conduct included in a single RAI—would result in redundant proceedings and constitute a waste of judicial resources" ( People v. Cook , 29 N.Y.3d 114, 119, 53 N.Y.S.3d 234, 75 N.E.3d 651 [2017] ). In order to prevent multiple courts from reaching conflicting conclusions based on the same RAI, "one—and only one—sentencing court should render a risk level determination based on all conduct contained in the RAI" ( id. at 119–120, 53 N.Y.S.3d 234, 75 N.E.3d 651 ; see People v. Katz , 150 A.D.3d 1160, 1160, 52 N.Y.S.3d 635 (2d Dept. 2017) ). Inasmuch as the Cattaraugus County SORA proceeding was duplicative, we reverse the order and vacate defendant's risk level determination made by Cattaraugus County Court (see Cook , 29 N.Y.3d at 119–120, 53 N.Y.S.3d 234, 75 N.E.3d 651 ; Katz , 150 A.D.3d at 1160, 52 N.Y.S.3d 635 ).
In light of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.