()

Justice Wayne Ozzi

Read Full-Text Decision

Young sought to expunge language indicating sexual misconduct contained in his 1979 pre-sentence report in this Article 78 proceeding. He also sought to enjoin respondents from compelling him to attend sex offender counseling due to his designation as a discretionary sex offender. Young was convicted of second degree murder in Dec. 1978, and released to parole in Oct. 2016. The court, however, stated Young’s challenge to omissions or inaccuracies in the presentence report was not properly before it as he never objected to the report or sought an adjournment to prepare a new report at the time of sentencing. DOCCS and the Parole Board were entitled to rely on the report’s accuracy in imposing parole conditions and same was not subject to collateral attack. Thus, Young’s failure to challenge the pre-sentencing report’s accuracy before the original sentence in a timely fashion foreclosed this court’s review, and expunging or revising alleged inaccuracies was denied. Also, the court found as the conditions imposed, including attending sex offender counseling, were rationally related to Young’s prior conduct—prosecutor characterizing Young’s conduct in the murder conviction as a sexual act—there was nothing arbitrary in imposing special conditions on Young.

Justice Wayne Ozzi

Read Full-Text Decision

Young sought to expunge language indicating sexual misconduct contained in his 1979 pre-sentence report in this Article 78 proceeding. He also sought to enjoin respondents from compelling him to attend sex offender counseling due to his designation as a discretionary sex offender. Young was convicted of second degree murder in Dec. 1978, and released to parole in Oct. 2016. The court, however, stated Young’s challenge to omissions or inaccuracies in the presentence report was not properly before it as he never objected to the report or sought an adjournment to prepare a new report at the time of sentencing. DOCCS and the Parole Board were entitled to rely on the report’s accuracy in imposing parole conditions and same was not subject to collateral attack. Thus, Young’s failure to challenge the pre-sentencing report’s accuracy before the original sentence in a timely fashion foreclosed this court’s review, and expunging or revising alleged inaccuracies was denied. Also, the court found as the conditions imposed, including attending sex offender counseling, were rationally related to Young’s prior conduct—prosecutor characterizing Young’s conduct in the murder conviction as a sexual act—there was nothing arbitrary in imposing special conditions on Young.