Opinion
2014-05-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ifeoma A. OKAFOR, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), entered June 6, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), entered June 6, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in relying upon facts set forth in the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in determining his risk level. “ ‘The case summary may constitute clear and convincing evidence of the facts alleged therein and, where, as here, the defendant does not dispute the facts contained in the case summary, the case summary alone is sufficient to support the court's determination’ ” ( People v. Vaillancourt, 112 A.D.3d 1375, 1375–1376, 978 N.Y.S.2d 517,lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 864, 2014 WL 1281989 [Apr. 1, 2014]; see People v. Bethune, 108 A.D.3d 1231, 1231–1232, 969 N.Y.S.2d 709,lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 853, 2013 WL 5658052). “[D]efense counsel's statement at the hearing that the court should not rely solely upon the case summary was not the equivalent of disputing the facts contained therein. Furthermore, defendant's contention that the court violated his due process rights by relying solely upon the case summary is without merit” ( Vaillancourt, 112 A.D.3d at 1376, 978 N.Y.S.2d 517;see People v. Latimore, 50 A.D.3d 1604, 1605, 856 N.Y.S.2d 422,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 717, 862 N.Y.S.2d 468, 892 N.E.2d 862;cf. People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 138–140, 711 N.Y.S.2d 134, 733 N.E.2d 206;see generally People v. Montanez, 88 A.D.3d 1278, 1279, 930 N.Y.S.2d 380).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ., concur.