People v. Conway

47 A.D.3d 492, 850 N.Y.S.2d 67
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 17, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 492 (People v. Conway) 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. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492, 850 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2006, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing sufficient total points to support a level three sex offender adjudication. The 15 point [493]*493risk factor of drug or alcohol abuse was established by reliable hearsay (see People v Port, 18 AD3d 23 [2005], Iv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]), including the felony complaint (see People v Moore, 16 AD3d 190 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 889 [2005]) stating that a vial of crack cocaine was recovered from defendant at the time of his arrest (as to which there was no claim that it was not for defendant’s own use), the risk assessment instrument, the record of defendant’s recent history of marijuana sales and the “report on convicted prisoner” prepared by the prosecutor just after sentencing (cf. People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 712 [2006] [probation report and case summary held reliable hearsay]). In addition, at the classification hearing it was undisputed that the grand jury testimony showed defendant had been drinking at the time of the underlying sex crime. Defendant failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, special circumstances warranting a downward departure (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Dash
111 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Sally
105 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Mingo
910 N.E.2d 983 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
People v. Thompson
61 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Carpenter
60 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Novoa
57 A.D.3d 231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Lewis
56 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.3d 492, 850 N.Y.S.2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conway-nyappdiv-2008.