Opinion
2012-12-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rodney ADAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court complied with the statutory mandate that the court set forth in the order “the findings of fact and conclusions of law” on which the determination is based (§ 168–n[3]; see People v. Carter, 35 A.D.3d 1023, 1023–1024, 825 N.Y.S.2d 830,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 810, 834 N.Y.S.2d 507, 866 N.E.2d 453). We reject defendant's further contention that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 15 points against him for a history of substance abuse ( see generally People v. Thompson, 66 A.D.3d 1455, 1455–1456, 885 N.Y.S.2d 828,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 714., 2009 WL 4845034). That assessment is supported by the reliable hearsay contained in the presentence report and the case summary ( see People v. Rotterman, 96 A.D.3d 1467, 1468, 945 N.Y.S.2d 912,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 813, 2012 WL 4074317;Thompson, 66 A.D.3d at 1456, 885 N.Y.S.2d 828;see generally People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983), which incorporated information from the presentence report. The presentence report set forth that defendant admitted to using marihuana and cocaine on a daily basis before his incarceration, and that admission was included in the case summary. At the SORA hearing, defendant claimed that he lied at the time of the presentence report to gain an advantageous sentence. Inasmuch as defendant admitted that he lied in order to benefit himself, the court was justified in discounting his statement at the hearing and assessing points for a history of substance abuse under risk factor 11. Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing ( see Rotterman, 96 A.D.3d at 1468, 945 N.Y.S.2d 912;People v. Bowles, 89 A.D.3d 171, 181, 932 N.Y.S.2d 112,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 807, 2012 WL 489796).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.