People v. Pidel
2021 NY Slip Op 04061
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background
- In April 2005 Pidel pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree; sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and five years' postrelease supervision.
- The SORA risk assessment instrument initially scored him as a presumptive risk level three (115 points).
- County Court, after a hearing, raised Pidel's score to 130 and classified him as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation.
- Pidel has a 1994 Air Force general court-martial conviction for indecent liberties with a 13-year-old (exposure and masturbation).
- The records include Pidel's admission that he was abusing prescription medication around the time of the instant offense; he appealed the assessments under risk factors 9 and 11 and the resulting classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 30 points under Risk Factor 9 may be assessed for Pidel's 1994 military indecent-liberties conviction | People: the military conviction falls within SORA's scope (essential-elements test) and is equivalent to NY endangering the welfare of a child | Pidel: the foreign (military) conviction is not a registerable NY sex offense and thus not a basis for 30 points | Court: Affirmed 30 points — the conviction meets the essential-elements test and is within NY's endangering-the-welfare scope |
| Whether 15 points under Risk Factor 11 (substance abuse) are supported | People: case summary contains Pidel's admission of prescription-drug abuse contributing to the offense | Pidel: insufficient evidence to support a substance-abuse assessment | Court: Affirmed 15 points — Pidel's admission provides clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether County Court's characterization of the military conviction as a "sex offense" invalidates the assessment | People: characterization was immaterial so long as the conduct fits a registerable NY offense | Pidel: mischaracterization shows error in assessment | Court: Harmless error — mislabeling does not negate that the conduct fits endangering the welfare of a child |
| Whether the overall Risk Level 3 classification is correct if one factor is erroneous | People: properly assessed points (totaling at least 120) justify Level 3 | Pidel: at least one assessed factor (risk factor 10) may be erroneous so classification should be overturned | Court: Affirmed Level 3 — even removing the potentially erroneous 10 points, properly assessed points sustain Level 3 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Liddle, 159 AD3d 1286 (addresses proof standard and admissible hearsay in SORA proceedings)
- People v Benton, 185 AD3d 1103 (SORA evidentiary standards and risk assessment practice)
- People v Perez, 35 NY3d 85 (essential-elements test for foreign convictions and treatment of endangering the welfare of a child)
- Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745 (articulates the essential-elements test under SORA)
- People v Simmons, 92 NY2d 829 (application of endangering-the-welfare principles)
- People v Morey, 224 AD2d 730 (treats foreign conduct as within the scope of endangering the welfare of a child)
- People v Williamson, 181 AD3d 1100 (risk factor 11 substance-abuse assessment guidance)
- People v Middlemiss, 153 AD3d 1096 (supports assessing substance-abuse points based on admissions)
- People v Filkins, 107 AD3d 1069 (same)