From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2006
35 A.D.3d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2005-11451.

December 19, 2006.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated November 4, 2005, which, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Nicoletta J. Caferri of counsel), for appellant.

Warren M. Silverman, Bayside, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is reclassified a level three sex offender.

As correctly argued by the People, the Supreme Court erred in assessing the defendant only five points under risk factor category nine. In light of the defendant's prior youthful offender adjudication for criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, a class B felony ( see Penal Law § 165.54), the Supreme Court should have assessed 15 points under risk factor category nine ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines Commentary, at 6-7, 14 [1997 ed]; People v Swackhammer, 25 AD3d 892; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387; People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124, 1125; People v Moore, 1 AD3d 421). Thus, upon properly assessing these 15 points, the defendant's total risk factor score is 110 points, which places the defendant's point range within that of a level three sex offender.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2006
35 A.D.3d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. CARL SMITH, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9585
828 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

People v. Feeney

Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the victim's statement provided the necessary basis to assess…

People v. Cruz

Nevertheless, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by the Board of Examiners of Sex…