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
THE DAY CARE PROVIDER TESTIFIED HER BACK WAS TURNED WHEN INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE SLIDE; THE DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WAS LAID; THE REFEREE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS; THE JUDGMENT OF FORELCOSURE SHOUILD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES.
Failure to Allege a “Special Relationship” Between Insurance Broker and Client Required Dismissal of the “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” Cause of Action
Upward Departure from Level One to Three Not Warranted by the Evidence