People v Brussel (Michael)

[*1] People v Brussel (Michael) 2005 NY Slip Op 51578(U) [9 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on September 26, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 26, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-280 N CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael Brussel, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Valerie Bullard, J.), rendered January 27, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted forcible touching. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The failure to advise defendant, that as a consequence of a guilty plea to attempted forcible touching he would be subject to the registration requirements
of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), did not implicate the validity of the
plea. The SORA provisions are "predominantly regulatory" in nature (People v
Stevens, 91 NY2d 270, 275 [1998]), and as the purpose of such registration is "administrative and ministerial rather than punitive" (People v Clark, 261 AD2d 97, 100 [2000]), and does not "effect punishment" (People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377, 378 [2002]), SORA eligibility is a collateral, not a direct consequence of a guilty plea, and a defendant need not be advised of such eligibility as a necessary element of a properly rendered plea (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; People v Coss, 19 AD3d 943 [2005]; People v Bullock, 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50483[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005] [a pleading defendant must be informed of eligibility for post-release supervision, a direct consequence of a guilty plea]).

Defendant's additional claim, that in light of his pending criminal complaint against the victim's brother, the District Attorney should have been disqualified, is also without merit. A prosecutor is "presumed to act impartially" (Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 130 AD2d 749, [*2]750 [1987]), and defendant demonstrated no actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an exploitation of confidence from the prosecutor's
interview of defendant as the potential complaining witness, in defendant's counsel's
presence, with respect either to his own case or the accusation against him (People v Herr, 86 NY2d 638, 641 [1996]; Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 55 [1983]).
Decision Date: September 26, 2005