People v. Gaines

39 A.D.3d 1212, 834 N.Y.S.2d 417
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 1212 (People v. Gaines) 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. Gaines, 39 A.D.3d 1212, 834 N.Y.S.2d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered October 13, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument resulted in the presumptive classification of defendant as a level two risk and, in determining that an upward departure to a level three risk was warranted, Supreme Court took into account defendant’s persistent history of violent activities and concluded that defendant presented a great danger to the community. On appeal, defendant contends that the People failed to establish the basis for the assessment of 20 points under risk factor seven, i.e., “[Relationship with victim.” We reject that contention. The People presented evidence establishing that the victim met defendant for the first time on the day of the incident, did not know his legal

[1213]*1213name, and apparently knew no other personal information about him. Thus, the court properly concluded that “defendant was a stranger to the victim” (People v McGraw, 24 AD3d 525, 526 [2005]; see generally Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [Nov. 1997]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Thomas
2024 NY Slip Op 02243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. Pollack
2018 NY Slip Op 1419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Arnold
126 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
ODUM, RICHARD, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Odum
101 A.D.3d 1693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Helmer
65 A.D.3d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Serrano
61 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Milton
55 A.D.3d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Lewis
45 A.D.3d 1381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.3d 1212, 834 N.Y.S.2d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gaines-nyappdiv-2007.