Opinion
2012-06-27
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel; Sheila Ballato on the brief), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel; Sheila Ballato on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 2, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The County Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sexually violent offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( seeCorrection 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;People v. Atkinson, 65 A.D.3d 1112, 885 N.Y.S.2d 208;People v. Bright, 63 A.D.3d 1133, 883 N.Y.S.2d 79;People v. Inghilleri, 21 A.D.3d 404, 406, 799 N.Y.S.2d 793). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not err in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 1 ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter SORA Guidelines], at 7–8 [2006 ed.]; Penal Law §§ 130.00[8], 130.65[1]; People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 704, 940 N.Y.S.2d 127), and 10 points under risk factor 12 ( see SORA Guidelines, at 15–16; People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 571, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983;People v. Deturris, 90 A.D.3d 727, 934 N.Y.S.2d 336;People v. Vega, 79 A.D.3d 718, 911 N.Y.S.2d 917;People v. Smith, 78 A.D.3d 917, 918, 911 N.Y.S.2d 451;People v. Wright, 37 A.D.3d 797, 832 N.Y.S.2d 221;People v. Lewis, 37 A.D.3d 689, 690, 830 N.Y.S.2d 312;People v. Fortin, 29 A.D.3d 765, 814 N.Y.S.2d 282).