From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Awalt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2005
17 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-04896.

April 4, 2005.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

David K. Lieb, P.C., Center Moriches, N.Y. (Laura Alto of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v. Hampton, 300 AD2d 641). The County Court properly considered the grand jury testimony in making its determination ( see People v. Thomas, 300 AD2d 379).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly assessed 15 points for the category concerning release without supervision on his "Risk Assessment Instrument" was unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Oquendo, 1 AD3d 421, 422) and, in any event, without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Awalt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2005
17 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Awalt

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANNY AWALT, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 4, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 839

Citing Cases

People v. Royal

s arrest, and shortly before his release from prison approximately 10 years later, provided clear and…

People v. Morrison

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 for the…