| People v Fiene |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08579 [56 AD3d 921] |
| November 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrel R.Fiene, Appellant. |
—[*1] David S. Hartnett, District Attorney, Cortland (Wendy L. Franklin of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.),entered January 11, 2008, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuantto the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging himwith rape in the second degree and rape in the third degree, and was sentenced as a second felonyoffender to an aggregate prison term of 3½ to 7 years. The Board of Examiners of SexOffenders recommended that defendant be classified as a risk level three sex offender and,following a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation. This appeal bydefendant ensued.
We affirm. Preliminarily, we note that defendant failed to challenge any of the pointsassessed on the risk assessment instrument, raised no objection to the proof submitted at thehearing and elected not to offer any testimony or other evidence on his behalf. Accordingly,defendant has failed to preserve his present challenges to his risk level classification for ourreview (see People v Coleman, 45AD3d 1118 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; People v Pierce, 27 AD3d 1182[2006]). In any event, contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court's analysis of the variousrisk factors and its resulting findings of fact and conclusions of law were more than adequate.Similarly unpersuasive is defendant's claim that the proof submitted at the [*2]hearing—namely, the risk assessmentinstrument—should have been the subject of a Frye hearing (see Frye v UnitedStates, 293 F 1013 [1923]). Simply put, neither the risk assessment instrument, thepresentence investigation report nor the case summary requires expert testimony to explain orunderstand their respective uses. Accordingly, we decline to disturb County Court's classificationof defendant as a risk level three sex offender.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.