Opinion
2011-12-20
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Ronnie WILLIAMS, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated February 10, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated July 13, 2010, made after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated July 13, 2010, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated February 10, 2011 ( see CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“In establishing an offender's appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determination by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ ” ( People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820, 820, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585, quoting Correction Law § 168–n[3]; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983; People v. King, 80 A.D.3d 681, 914 N.Y.S.2d 671). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor one ( see People v. Kost, 82 A.D.3d 729, 917 N.Y.S.2d 916; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 7–8 [2006 ed.] ). The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168–n[3]; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983; People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d at 820, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points ( see People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408–409, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053).
Accordingly, the County Court correctly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.