People v. Flynn (Abdul)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50835(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Flynn (Abdul) (People v. Flynn (Abdul)) 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. Flynn (Abdul), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Abdul Flynn, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), dated September 5, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (Marc J. Whiten, J.), dated September 5, 2012, affirmed.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication. Defendant's challenge to the 30-point assessment based upon there being three victims is lacking in merit. Although defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of third-degree sexual abuse, the SORA court was not limited to the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty (see People v Colon, 139 AD3d 466 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]; People v Thomas, 59 AD3d 783, 784 [2009]), but could, instead, consider reliable hearsay evidence in the record, including the case summary, misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572—573 [2009]; People v Witherspoon, 140 AD3d 1674, 1675 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 905 [2016]), which plainly revealed that there were three victims.

The SORA Court also correctly assessed 20 points against defendant under risk factor 7 because he was a stranger to the victims. The allegations in the misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition supported a reasonable inference that the victims and defendant did not know each other (see People v O'Neal, 35 AD3d 302 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). The court also properly assessed 15 points for defendant's history of drug or alcohol abuse, based upon defendant's admission to prison officials in a reception interview in 2003 that he had abused alcohol and crack, and upon him scoring in the alcoholic range on a prison screening test that same year (see People v Zewge, 142 AD3d 880, 881 [2016]; People v Tejada, 51 AD3d 472 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 23, 2017

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

Related

People v. Mingo
910 N.E.2d 983 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
People v. Colon
139 A.D.3d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Zewge
142 A.D.3d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. O'Neal
35 A.D.3d 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Tejada
51 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Thomas
59 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Flynn (Abdul), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flynn-abdul-nyappterm-2017.