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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 336 (People v. Awalt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 336, 791 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-awalt-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack