From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Price

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-08-2017

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Robert E. PRICE, appellant.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion M. Tang of counsel), for respondent.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion M. Tang of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 16, 2016, 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 (Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ). In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, the parole officer, or the corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 571–573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ; People v. Villanueva, 143 A.D.3d 794, 38 N.Y.S.3d 805 ; People v. Morrell, 139 A.D.3d 835, 31 N.Y.S.3d 561 ; People v. Sanchez, 136 A.D.3d 1007, 26 N.Y.S.3d 320 ). Presentence reports meet the reliable hearsay standards for admissibility at SORA proceedings (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ; People v. Villanueva, 143 A.D.3d at 794, 38 N.Y.S.3d 805).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse). The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, including the defendant's statements in the presentence report (see People v. Villanueva, 143 A.D.3d at 794, 38 N.Y.S.3d 805; People v. Morrell, 139 A.D.3d at 836, 31 N.Y.S.3d 561 ; People v. Palacios, 137 A.D.3d 761, 762, 26 N.Y.S.3d 351 ; People v. Torres, 124 A.D.3d 744, 745, 998 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; cf. People v. Palmer, 20 N.Y.3d 373, 960 N.Y.S.2d 719, 984 N.E.2d 917 ).

Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.


Summaries of

People v. Price

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Price

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Robert E. PRICE, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 847
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1720

Citing Cases

People v. Liddle

In his written submission in these proceedings, defendant admitted that, in 2011, he had experienced an…

People v. Jensen

As the risk level set forth in the RAI is merely presumptive, the assignment of a risk level is within the…