You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL...
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE; COUNSEL MADE AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE 2ND DEPARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense counsel was ineffective the SORA risk-level assessment proceeding:

The defendant was convicted, in federal court, of possession of child pornography … . After a hearing to determine his level of risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act … , at which the defendant was assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims), 30 points under risk factor 5 (age of victims), and 20 points under risk factor 7 (victims were strangers), the defendant was designated a level two sex offender. …

A defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a SORA proceeding … . Here, the only argument that defense counsel made at the hearing—challenging the assessment of points under risk factors 3 and 7 in light of the nature of the offense—had been soundly rejected by the Court of Appeals … and this Court … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, defense counsel’s failure to apply, instead, for a downward departure on the basis of an overassessment of risk level due to application of points under risk factors 3 and 7 … , demonstrated a misunderstanding of the relevant law and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Bertrand, 2021 NY Slip Op 03338, Second Dept 5-25-21

 

You might also like
A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient
Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement
Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Cause of Action Based Upon a Legal Theory Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Action Stemming from the Same Events Precluded by the Doctrine of Res Judicata
Party Moving for a Change of Venue Must Demonstrate the Change Will Better Serve the Convenience of Material Witnesses

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS...