Opinion
2012-06568
11-26-2014
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Robert JENNINGS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Ferdinand Suba, Jr., on the brief), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Ferdinand Suba, Jr., on the brief), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Riviezzo, J.), dated July 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two 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 bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v. Finizio, 100 A.D.3d 977, 978, 954 N.Y.S.2d 636 ). “ [E]vidence 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 of Examiners of Sex Offenders ... 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, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly assessed 10 points against him under risk factor 1 (forcible compulsion) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 566, 990 N.Y.S.2d 838 ; People v. Watson, 109 A.D.3d 463, 970 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; People v. Wiedeman, 51 A.D.3d 888, 856 N.Y.S.2d 884 ). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant compelled the victim to comply with his demands by use of physical force (see Penal Law § 130.00[8] ; People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 704, 940 N.Y.S.2d 127 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 13, based on his unsatisfactory conduct while supervised (see People v. Young, 108 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 969 N.Y.S.2d 372 ; People v. Lowery, 93 A.D.3d 1269, 1270–1271, 940 N.Y.S.2d 745 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.