From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2008
52 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 3940, 3941.

June 12, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2006, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Desiree Sheridan of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.


The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three adjudication. Reliable information including grand jury testimony, defendant's criminal history and admissions made by defendant, along with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, supported each of the risk factors at issue ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25, lv denied 4 NY3d 885; People v Roland, 292 AD2d 271, lv denied 98 NY2d 614), and we have considered and rejected defendant's arguments as to each factor. We also reject defendant's challenges to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ( see People v Bligen, 33 AD3d 489; People v Joe, 26 AD3d 300, lv denied 7 NY3d 703).


Summaries of

People v. Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2008
52 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Michael

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL BAILEY…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5383
860 N.Y.S.2d 509

Citing Cases

People v. Velasquez

The mitigating factors argued by defendant were adequately considered by the court, were outweighed by the…

People v. Parilla

It was also error to assess 20 points for the age of one victim. While sworn grand jury testimony is…