From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Warwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 19, 2004
5 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

KA 02-02359.

Decided March 19, 2004.

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered July 8, 2002. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

GARY A. HORTON, PUBLIC DEFENDER, BATAVIA (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in designating him a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) because he accepted responsibility for his actions. We reject that contention. Defendant's own statements to the police and the sex offender examiner indicate that defendant perceived his sexual abuse of the incapacitated victim as a consensual relationship. Thus, the court's determination of defendant's risk level is based on clear and convincing evidence, and we will not disturb it ( see § 168-n [3]; People v. Thomas, 307 A.D.2d 759, 760).


Summaries of

People v. Warwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 19, 2004
5 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Warwick

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STEPHEN H…

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 686

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

Thus, those contentions are not preserved for our review ( see Oram v. Capone, 206 AD2d 839). Contrary to…

People v. Peterson

In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as the Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by the…