People v Griest

People v Griest 2015 NY Slip Op 06452 Decided on August 6, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: August 6, 2015
519408

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

DONALD R. GRIEST JR., Appellant.

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

Frank A. Sarat, Homer, for appellant.

Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Elizabeth McGrath of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.), rendered March 20, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In 2008, defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and, following his release from prison, he was required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). He was presumptively classified as a risk level III sex offender based upon the score on the risk assessment instrument, and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that he be classified as such. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted before County Court to determine the appropriate risk level classification. Following a continuation of the hearing, the court ultimately classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender based upon

the risk assessment instrument score. Defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. The record discloses, however, that defendant argued to County Court that he had been erroneously assessed too many points in specific risk assessment categories and, as a result, he should have been presumptively scored as a risk level II sex offender (see People v Irizarry, 89 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]; People v Meyer, 52 AD3d 921, 921-922 [2008]). Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merit of these or any other potential issues, counsel's request to be relieved of assignment is granted and new counsel shall be assigned to address any nonfrivolous issues that the record may disclose (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.