From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 12, 2007
39 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 99258.

April 12, 2007.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Essex County (Halloran, J), entered December 30, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Reginald H. Bedell, Elizabethtown, for appellant.

Julie A. Garcia, District Attorney, Elizabethtown (Brian Felton of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.


In 1988, defendant pleaded guilty in New Hampshire to aggravated felonious sexual assault stemming from his abuse of his then 14-year-old stepdaughter. After serving his sentence and relocating to Essex County, a hearing was conducted in order to determine defendant's risk level status. County Court classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C). Defendant appeals and we affirm.

A properly completed risk assessment instrument was submitted by the People and considered by the classifying court ( see People v Sass, 27 AD3d 968, 969). The record reveals that County Court reviewed all of the relevant evidence and made a final determination based upon clear and convincing evidence. While defendant asserts that his plea to the 1988 indictment was not sufficient to support a conclusion that he engaged in sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter, we disagree. The "acknowledgment of rights" executed by him on June 14, 1988, cosigned by his counsel, contains his admission that he "committed the acts charged in the indictment and that [he] intended to do so." As this was his second felony conviction for sexual assault, the first being seven years prior with the same victim, we find County Court's numerical scoring on the various factors in the risk assessment instrument to be properly supported.

We have considered defendant's additional ascriptions of error and find them to be without merit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

State v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 12, 2007
39 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Young

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEO YOUNG, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3052
834 N.Y.S.2d 354