People v. Awalt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Awalt

17 A.D.3d 336, 791 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3547

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 4, 2005·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]). The County Court properly considered the grand jury testimony in making its determination (see People v Thomas, 300 AD2d 379 [2002]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly assessed 15 points for the category concerning release without supervision on his “Risk Assessment Instrument” was unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Oquendo, 1 AD3d 421, 422 [2003]) and, in any event, without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]). The County Court properly considered the grand jury testimony in making its determination (see People v Thomas, 300 AD2d 379 [2002]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly assessed 15 points for the category concerning release without supervision on his “Risk Assessment Instrument” was unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Oquendo, 1 AD3d 421, 422 [2003]) and, in any event, without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

People v. Awalt, 17 A.D.3d 336, 791 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 336 (People v. Awalt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related