Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Ortiz
People v. Ortiz, 114 A.D.3d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2014)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2014-02-13
- Topic
- international-arbitration
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J), dated February 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendant’s contention that he is not a sex offender within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Windham, 37 AD3d 571 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 801 [2008]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since he was convicted of rape in the second degree, a specified sex offense requiring his registration as a sex offender (see Correction Law §§ 168-a, 168-f). The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171 [2011]).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Ortiz. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J), dated February 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant’s contention that he is not a sex offender within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Windham, 37 AD3d 571 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 801 [2008]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since he was convicted of rape in the second degree, a specified sex offense requiring his registration as a sex offender (see Correction Law §§ 168-a, 168-f).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171 [2011]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Balkin, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.