People v Pierce
2006 NYSlipOp 02075
March 17, 2006
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2006


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Pierce, Appellant.

[*1]Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), entered January 21, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The sole contention of defendant on appeal is that County Court erred in assessing 20 points against him based on the fact that his offenses constituted a "[c]ontinuing course of sexual misconduct." That contention is raised for the first time on appeal, however, and thus is unpreserved for our review (see People v Sinclair, 23 AD3d 537 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 707 [2006], citing People v Cureton, 299 AD2d 532 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 627 [2003]; People v Roland, 292 AD2d 271, 272 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 614 [2002]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention (see People v Santiago, 20 AD3d 885, 886 [2005]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Green and Hayes, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.