People v. Carter

97 A.D.3d 557, 947 N.Y.2d 325
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Carter. Read the opinion of the Court — 74 A.D.3d 1375

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly determined that the assessment of five points under risk factor 2 (sexual contact with the victim — contact over clothing), was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the case summary and supplemental incident report relied upon by the hearing court indicated that the defendant touched the infant victim’s buttocks over her clothing during the subject incident (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; People v Perser, 29 AD3d 767 [2006]; People v Boykin, 127 AD2d 1004 [1987]). Additionally, the assessment of 15 points under risk factor 11, based on a history of drug or alcohol abuse, was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The case summary and supplemental incident report indicated that the defendant had been abusing methamphetamine at the time of the subject incident (see People [558]*558v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629-630 [2011]; People v Morales, 33 AD3d 982, 983 [2006]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Carter, 97 A.D.3d 557, 947 N.Y.2d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

97 A.D.3d 557 (People v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Mingo
910 N.E.2d 983 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
People v. Perser
29 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Morales
33 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Crandall
90 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Boykin
127 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)