Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ygord Beliard, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-05-19
Citations: 139 A.D.3d 1267
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ygord Beliard, Appellant.
Judges: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 1267–1268

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ygord Beliard, Appellant.
[30 NYS3d 588]

Opinion:
Devine, J.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree, attempted sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument presumptively classifying defendant as a risk level two sex offender (105 points) and recommended against a departure. Following hearings, County Court adopted the Board's risk level scoring and classified him as a risk level two sex offender. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court should have ordered a hearing as to defendant's competence to participate in the risk assessment hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30. Assuming without deciding that a court's duty to order a competency hearing is applicable to risk level determinations pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (but see CPL 730.30 [1]), we find no abuse of discretion in County Court's failure to order such a hearing here. No hearing was requested and, although defendant was uncooperative, argumentative and evasive in his responses to County Court's questions during the hearings, he denied ever being treated for any mental illness or condition and his behavior did not raise a reasonable belief that he was unable to understand the proceedings or assist in the determination of his risk assessment level as to require a competency hearing (see People v Yu-Jen Chang, 92 AD3d 1132, 1134-1135 [2012]; People v Hood, 35 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; see also United States v Neal, 776 F3d 645, 658-659 [9th Cir 2015]).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.