Opinion
2012-05-15
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Edward WILLIAMS, appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), dated April 14, 2009, which, after a hearing, inter alia, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6–C), the People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determination by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law § 168–n[3]; People v. Williams, 90 A.D.3d 880, 881, 934 N.Y.S.2d 817; People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446). Here, the People satisfied their burden of adducing facts in support of the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) by clear and convincing evidence. The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168–n[3] ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points ( see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983; *784 People v. Williams, 90 A.D.3d at 881, 934 N.Y.S.2d 817).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the County Court correctly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.