Opinion
No. 2021-02632
10-12-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Dennis Boles, appellant.
James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant. Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.
James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), dated March 9, 2021, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the County Court, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
"In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination by clear and convincing evidence" (People v Jensen, 204 A.D.3d 846, 847; see People v Jarama, 178 A.D.3d 970, 971). "'In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, and any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the parties, including reliable hearsay evidence, which may come from, among other documents, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, or case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders [hereinafter the Board]'" (People v Jensen, 204 A.D.3d at 847, quoting People v Cepeda, 161 A.D.3d 904, 905).
Here, the People established by clear and convincing evidence that 20 points should be assessed under risk factor 4 for continuing course of sexual misconduct. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the information contained in the case summary, which included the victim's statements made to North Dakota authorities, was reliable within the meaning of SORA (see People v Diaz, 34 N.Y.3d 1179, 1181; People v Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573; People v Lyons, 199 A.D.3d 722; People v Brown, 194 A.D.3d 861, 862; People v Maldonado, 147 A.D.3d 798, 799; People v Thompson, 111 A.D.3d 613).
Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.