People v. Camacho (Paulino)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho (Paulino)

75 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 2022

Docket570374/16

StatusUnpublished

This text of 75 Misc. 3d 133(A) (People v. Camacho (Paulino)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Camacho (Paulino), 75 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Camacho (2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U)) [*1]

People v Camacho (Paulino)

2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U) [75 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on June 15, 2022

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 15, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570374/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Paulino Camacho, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Stephen Antignani, J.), dated February 1, 2017, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA") (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (Stephen Antignani, J.), dated February 1, 2017, affirmed.

The record supports the level two sex offender adjudication. The SORA court properly assessed 30 points based on defendant's July 10, 2014 conviction for endangering the welfare of a child (see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 13-14; People v Perez, 35 NY3d 85, 88-89 [2020]). Defendant's case summary, pre-sentencing report and DCJS criminal history report ("rap sheet") provided reliable hearsay (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009]), particularly given that defendant did not dispute the truthfulness or the accuracy of his prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Colon, 139 AD3d 466 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]).

The court also properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 for defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse based upon defendant's own admissions, including his statement to probation officials that he had used alcohol and cocaine on a weekly basis, and PCP and marijuana on a daily basis, as well as his criminal history (see People v Smalls, 164 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 914 [2019]; People v Smith, 161 AD3d 430 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 901 [2018]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: June 15, 2022

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

People v Camacho (2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U)) [*1]

People v Camacho (Paulino)

2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U) [75 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on June 15, 2022

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 15, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570374/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Paulino Camacho, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Stephen Antignani, J.), dated February 1, 2017, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA") (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (Stephen Antignani, J.), dated February 1, 2017, affirmed.

The record supports the level two sex offender adjudication. The SORA court properly assessed 30 points based on defendant's July 10, 2014 conviction for endangering the welfare of a child (see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 13-14; People v Perez, 35 NY3d 85, 88-89 [2020]). Defendant's case summary, pre-sentencing report and DCJS criminal history report ("rap sheet") provided reliable hearsay (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009]), particularly given that defendant did not dispute the truthfulness or the accuracy of his prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Colon, 139 AD3d 466 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]).

The court also properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 for defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse based upon defendant's own admissions, including his statement to probation officials that he had used alcohol and cocaine on a weekly basis, and PCP and marijuana on a daily basis, as well as his criminal history (see People v Smalls, 164 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 914 [2019]; People v Smith, 161 AD3d 430 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 901 [2018]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: June 15, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50491(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-paulino-nyappterm-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack