From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2008-05924.

June 1, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated June 11, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ.


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

The County Court's designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law art 6-C; People v Dong V. Dao, 9 AD3d 401, 401-402). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 15 points, under risk factor 11, for a history of drug abuse ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006]; People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751, 752). The presentence reports offered by the People at the SORA hearing constituted "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those 15 points.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT HARRIS…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4756
901 N.Y.S.2d 534

Citing Cases

People v. Geehreng

The County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender. Contrary to the defendant's…

People v. Abrams

The defendant's prior convictions, coupled with the information contained in the case summary, were…