Opinion
1078 KA 18–01221
03-13-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie SINGLETON, Defendant–Appellant.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MARK C. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIE SINGLETON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MARK C. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIE SINGLETON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o (2) seeking to modify the prior determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (§ 168 et seq. ). We affirm.
Defendant's contentions in his main brief concerning County Court's initial SORA risk level determination, which occurred in 2006, are not before us inasmuch as " Correction Law § 168–o ... does not provide a vehicle for reviewing whether defendant's circumstances were properly analyzed in the first instance to arrive at his risk level" ( People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 140, 711 N.Y.S.2d 134, 733 N.E.2d 206 [2000] ; see People v. Anthony, 171 A.D.3d 1412, 1413, 99 N.Y.S.3d 115 [3d Dept. 2019] ).
We reject defendant's further contention in his main brief that the court erred in denying the petition. In this proceeding seeking a modification of a SORA risk level determination, defendant bore the "burden of proving the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence" ( Correction Law § 168–o [2] ; see People v. Williams, 170 A.D.3d 1531, 1531, 94 N.Y.S.3d 490 [4th Dept. 2019] ; People v. Cullen, 79 A.D.3d 1677, 1677, 917 N.Y.S.2d 447 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 1237556 [2011] ), and he failed to meet that burden (see People v. Charles, 162 A.D.3d 125, 140, 77 N.Y.S.3d 130 [2d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 904, 2018 WL 4354724 [2018] ; People v. Johnson, 124 A.D.3d 495, 496, 1 N.Y.S.3d 103 [1st Dept. 2015] ; see generally People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d 478, 484, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 [2015] ). We have considered defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief concerning the hearing and we conclude that it lacks merit.