People v. English

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. English

60 A.D.3d 923, 874 N.Y.S.2d 818

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 923 (People v. English) 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. English, 60 A.D.3d 923, 874 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 20, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s determination to assess him 15 points under risk factor 14 for release without supervision was proper inasmuch as he is not under supervision in New York for his sex offenses in Florida and Nevada, and did not successfully complete his probation in Florida before reoffending in Nevada (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 17 [2006]; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2007]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Belen, 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 (Kahn, J.), dated February 20, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s determination to assess him 15 points under risk factor 14 for release without supervision was proper inasmuch as he is not under supervision in New York for his sex offenses in Florida and Nevada, and did not successfully complete his probation in Florida before reoffending in Nevada (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 17 [2006]; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2007]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 923, 874 N.Y.S.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-english-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack