Opinion
07-19-2017
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Navatro LeGRAND, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine ), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine ), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated April 29, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C), the People have "the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 117–118, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). "In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board ... or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay" (People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [hereinafter SORA Guidelines] ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 3, based upon two victims (see SORA Guidelines at 10; People v. Madera, 100 A.D.3d 1111, 953 N.Y.S.2d 385 ; People v. Kruger, 88 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 931 N.Y.S.2d 753 ), and 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see SORA Guidelines at 16–17; People v. Bush, 105 A.D.3d 1179, 1180–1181, 964 N.Y.S.2d 270 ; People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d at 630, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820, 820–821, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585 ; People v. Ealy, 55 A.D.3d 1313, 1314, 866 N.Y.S.2d 840 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Noble, 146 A.D.3d 824, 43 N.Y.S.3d 912 ; People v. Benitez, 140 A.D.3d 1140, 35 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; People v. Angelo, 3 A.D.3d 482, 769 N.Y.S.2d 753 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.