From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. William Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 2010
77 A.D.3d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-11322.

October 26, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated October 21, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Austin, JJ.


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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law § 168-n). The County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 and 20 points under risk factor 4 ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 9-10 [2006]). The victim's sworn statements, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points.

Moreover, the defendant did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed which would warrant a departure from the risk level three designation ( see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463; People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545).


Summaries of

People v. William Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 2010
77 A.D.3d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. William Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OP THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOHNSON, JR.…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7728
909 N.Y.S.2d 646

Citing Cases

People v. Stahl

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he is not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level…

People v. Stahl

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he is not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level…