From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2007
37 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2005-09560.

February 6, 2007.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), dated August 8, 2005, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Rubin, Cooper Bertrand, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Alan Brinn of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel; David Allen on the brief), for respondent.

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, PETER B. SKELOS, JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A departure from the presumptive risk level recommended by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) is warranted where "'there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines'" ( People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [1997 ed]). The court's finding in this regard must be supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see People v Dexter, supra at 404; People v Valentine, 15 AD3d 463; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641; Correction Law § 168-n).

Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing testimony as well as the Board's case summary provided clear and convincing evidence that aggravating factors existed which were not fully taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in making an upward departure from the presumptive level two adjudication ( see People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409; People v White, 25 AD3d 677; People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446; People v Dexter, supra; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

State v. Hands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2007
37 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Hands

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL HANDS…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1099
829 N.Y.S.2d 224

Citing Cases

People v. Jose

A departure from the presumptive risk level, as determined by the defendant's total risk factor score on the…

State v. Montalvo

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the defendant's contention,…