| People v Zayas |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09875 [57 AD3d 1179] |
| December 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose M. Zayas,Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard J. McNally Jr., District Attorney, Troy (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Jacon, J.), enteredFebruary 28, 2008, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the SexOffender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct, among other crimes, stemming from the forciblerape of a 15-year-old acquaintance on numerous occasions and he was sentenced to two consecutiveone-year terms of incarceration. In anticipation of defendant's release, the Board of Examiners of SexOffenders prepared a risk assessment instrument pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act(see Correction Law art 6-C), classifying him as a risk level three sex offender. Following ahearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation with a minor reduction in pointassessment and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender, prompting this appeal.
Upon a review of the record, we find that meaningful appellate review of defendant's designation asa risk level three sex offender is foreclosed because County Court failed to issue an order setting forthits findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3) (see People v Judson, 50 AD3d 1242,1243 [2008]; People v Torchia, 39AD3d 1137, 1138 [2007]). The court's single-page form order merely concluded that defendantbe assigned a final risk level of three and alludes to the "findings of fact and conclusions of law made onthe [*2]record in open court." However, a review of the hearingminutes establishes that, of the nine categories for which the Board assessed points, the court addressedjust three categories and issued no findings of fact or conclusions of law with regard to the other six (see People v Marr, 20 AD3d 692, 693[2005]; compare People v Roberts, 54AD3d 1106 [2008]). For that reason, the matter must be remitted to County Court for adisposition in compliance with the mandates of the statute and in accordance with this decision. Theparties' remaining arguments are rendered academic by our determination.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law,without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Rensselaer County for further proceedingsnot inconsistent with this Court's decision.