People v Davis

People v Davis 2015 NY Slip Op 05745 Decided on July 2, 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: July 2, 2015
520129

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

v

DANIEL DAVIS, Appellant.

Calendar Date: May 27, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Devine, JJ.

John W. Hillman, Valatie, for appellant.

Michael Cozzolino, Special Prosecutor, Claverack, for respondent.

Lahtinen, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Koweek, J.), entered September 30, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, stemming from his sexual contact with a 10-year-old child when he was 60 years old, and was sentenced to one year in jail. The People submitted a risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level I sex offender, in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C). However, the People requested a risk level III assessment as an upward departure, based upon defendant's 30-year criminal history.

After a hearing, County Court agreed and classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender and a predicate sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-a [7] [c]). Defendant appeals.

The order sought to be reviewed on this appeal contains a date stamp reflecting that it was signed by the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Court and entered in the office of the clerk of the Family Court of Columbia County, instead of in the office of the clerk of the County Court of Columbia County. Since the order was not "entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable" (CPLR 2220 [a]), the appeal is not properly before us at this time and must be dismissed (see People v Laurange, 97 AD3d 995, 996 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.