People v. Miranda, 8 N.Y.3d 830 (2007)

A defendant must preserve an objection to the lack of statutory notice regarding a proposed sex offender risk level classification to raise the issue on appeal.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the People did not provide him with the required statutory notice of their intent to seek a risk level classification different from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders’ recommendation. The defendant did not raise the notice issue in County Court, thus precluding appellate review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing the importance of raising objections at the trial level to allow for proper consideration and potential correction of errors.

Facts

Defendant was convicted of unlawful dealing with a child, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) assessed him as a presumptive level three sex offender based on a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) score of 125 points. The Board recommended a downward departure to level two, citing his high school completion and lack of prior criminal history. County Court deducted 10 points from the RAI score because the defendant was to be released with supervision, resulting in an adjusted score of 115. The court rejected the Board’s recommendation for a downward departure, adhering to a level three classification based on the adjusted point score.

Procedural History

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted in County Court. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a level three classification but suggested a downward departure to level two. The County Court classified the defendant as a level three sex offender, disagreeing with the Board’s departure recommendation. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the defendant argued that he did not receive the statutory 10-day notice of the People’s intent to seek a risk level classification different from the Board’s recommendation. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, holding that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for review. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant must object at the trial level to the People’s failure to provide statutory notice of their intent to seek a sex offender risk level classification different from the Board’s recommendation in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Holding

No, because the defendant failed to raise the issue in County Court, he did not preserve the issue for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s argument regarding the lack of statutory notice (Correction Law § 168-n [3]) was not preserved for appellate review because he failed to raise it in County Court. The Court distinguished the case from People v. Davila and People v. MacNeil, without elaborating on the distinctions. The Court’s decision rests on the fundamental principle that issues must be raised at the trial level to provide the court with an opportunity to address and correct any potential errors. By failing to object to the lack of notice in County Court, the defendant forfeited his right to raise the issue on appeal. The Court’s emphasis on preservation underscores the importance of timely raising objections to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. “[A] defendant failed to preserve this contention for review…”