| People v Middlemiss |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02787 [105 AD3d 1268] |
| April 25, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PaulD. Middlemiss, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Jonathan L. Becker of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered March3, 2005 in St. Lawrence County, which classified defendant as a risk level III sexoffender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to sodomy in the third degree in 1994 and he was classifiedin 1996 as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act(see Correction Law art 6-C). In 2005, he was afforded a rehearing pursuant tothe stipulation in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]). The People againsought classification of defendant as a risk level III sex offender and Supreme Courtfound "nothing that has been shown that would indicate that your level [of] offender[classification] should be changed in any way." Defendant now appeals.
The People concede that defendant is entitled to a new hearing because SupremeCourt treated the 2005 rehearing as one for modification, as opposed to classification(compare Correction Law § 168-n with Correction Law §168-o). As the People now acknowledge, they bore the burden of establishing thedetermination sought by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law§ 168-n [3]; see e.g.People v Callan, 62 AD3d 1218, 1218 [2009]; People v Dickison, 24 AD3d980, 981 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]). Inasmuch as the recordhere reflects that the burden was placed on defendant to demonstrate sufficient evidence[*2]warranting a departure from the risk level IIIclassification (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), we remit for a newhearing (see People vZayas, 57 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2008]; People v Freeman, 43 AD3d 1246, 1246-1247 [2007]).Defendant's remaining claims of error are rendered academic.
Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, onthe law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedingsnot inconsistent with this Court's decision.