Opinion
02-22-2017
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Luis RAMOS, appellant.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Ellen O'Hara Woods of counsel), for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek and Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Ellen O'Hara Woods of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek and Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated July 3, 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 under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see 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] ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15–16 [2006] ). The defendant's post-plea statement to the Probation Department—which is contained in the presentence investigation report and, therefore, constitutes admissible hearsay evidence for SORA purposes (see People v. Picariello, 145 A.D.3d 804, 43 N.Y.S.3d 467 ; People v. Lucius, 122 A.D.3d 819, 996 N.Y.S.2d 659 ; People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446 )—provided clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his conduct (see People v. Benitez, 140 A.D.3d 1140, 1140–1141, 35 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; People v. Thompson, 95 A.D.3d 977, 978, 943 N.Y.S.2d 771 ; People v. Murphy, 68 A.D.3d 832, 833, 890 N.Y.S.2d 605 ).
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.