Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Smith

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


January 12, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
SEAN SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered January 6, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and unlicensed driving, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

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.

Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

4947/06

Although defendant has appealed from his judgment of conviction, the only issue he raises relates to the legality of the sentencing court's direction that he register with the Police Department pursuant to the Gun Offender Registration Act (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-601 et seq.) and comply with the other requirements of GORA upon his release from prison. However, the registration and other requirements of GORA are not part of the sentence, or otherwise part of the judgment. Instead, they are analogous to the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act, and a SORA determination (for which the Legislature has provided a right to a separate civil appeal) may not be reviewed on an appeal from a criminal judgment (see People v Kearns, 95 NY2d 816, 817 [2000]; People v Stevens, 91 NY2d 270, 277 [1998]). Moreover, here the court did not make any kind of certification or determination regarding GORA, or make GORA compliance a condition of a nonincarceratory sentence under Penal Law article 65; its only involvement was to inform defendant of his legal obligations and to obtain his signature on a registration form.

Since the appeal is properly before us as an appeal from a judgment, we do not dismiss the appeal, but affirm on the ground that no reviewable issue has been raised (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]). In any event, defendant's challenge to GORA is both unpreserved and without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100112

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.