Opinion
No. 570598/19
11-22-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Welles, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert Rosenthal, J.), dated July 25, 2019, which, after a hearing, adjudicated him a level one sex offender, pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C).
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Robert Rosenthal, J.), dated July 25, 2019, affirmed.
The delay between the underlying attempted possessing a sexual performance by a child conviction (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 263.16) and the SORA hearing did not violate defendant's right to due process. Correction Law § 168-l(8) provides that a failure by a state or local agency to act or by a court to render a determination within the time period specified by the Sex Offender Registration Act shall not affect the obligation of a sex offender to register or verify under SORA, nor shall such failure prevent a court from making a determination regarding the sex offender's level of notification. SORA is regulatory rather than criminal in nature and, as such, "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as those required in a plenary criminal or civil trial" (People v Baxin, 26 N.Y.3d 6, 10 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Considering that defendant was already under a lifelong obligation to register as a Tier III sex offender in Louisiana, as a result of a 2006 federal conviction for the transportation and possession of child pornography (see People v Gallagher, 129 A.D.3d 1252, 1253 [2015] , lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 908 [2015]), we conclude that the delay herein was not "so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority" (People v Gonzalez, 138 A.D.3d 814, 815 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 913 [2016] ; see People v Lumpkin, 168 A.D.3d 1111, 1112 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 907 [2019]; compare People v Gregory, 71 A.D.3d 1559, 1560 [2010]).
All concur