People v. Greene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Greene

83 A.D.3d 1304, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740

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

DecidedApril 21, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1304 (People v. Greene) 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. Greene, 83 A.D.3d 1304, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered January 8, 2010, which granted the People’s application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (3) for reclassification of defendant’s sex offender risk level status.

Defendant previously pleaded guilty to a sex offense in Florida and, upon his relocation to Broome County in 2001, was classified as a risk level one sex offender. In 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to a period of probation. The People thereafter (pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o [3]) sought to reclassify defendant as a risk level two sex offender, and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders supported that application (see Correction Law § 168-o [4]). Following a hearing, County Court reclassified defendant as a risk level two sex offender, and defendant appeals.

Correction Law § 168-o (3) permits the People to seek modification of a sex offender’s risk level status where such offender has, among other things, been convicted of a new crime and the conduct underlying such crime “is of a nature that indicates an increased risk of a repeat sex offense” (see generally People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 194 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]). Here, in pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, defendant admitted that he engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the then five-year-old victim. Despite the fact that this conviction did not qualify as a register-able sex offense (see Correction Law § 168-a [2]), the nature of the conduct underlying it is sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-o [3]), that defendant is at an increased risk to reoffend. Accordingly, County Court properly granted the People’s application for an upward modification of defendant’s risk level classification (cf. People v Turpeau, 68 AD3d 1083 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 705 [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered January 8, 2010, which granted the People’s application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (3) for reclassification of defendant’s sex offender risk level status.

Defendant previously pleaded guilty to a sex offense in Florida and, upon his relocation to Broome County in 2001, was classified as a risk level one sex offender. In 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to a period of probation. The People thereafter (pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o [3]) sought to reclassify defendant as a risk level two sex offender, and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders supported that application (see Correction Law § 168-o [4]). Following a hearing, County Court reclassified defendant as a risk level two sex offender, and defendant appeals.

Correction Law § 168-o (3) permits the People to seek modification of a sex offender’s risk level status where such offender has, among other things, been convicted of a new crime and the conduct underlying such crime “is of a nature that indicates an increased risk of a repeat sex offense” (see generally People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 194 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]). Here, in pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, defendant admitted that he engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the then five-year-old victim. Despite the fact that this conviction did not qualify as a register-able sex offense (see Correction Law § 168-a [2]), the nature of the conduct underlying it is sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-o [3]), that defendant is at an increased risk to reoffend. Accordingly, County Court properly granted the People’s application for an upward modification of defendant’s risk level classification (cf. People v Turpeau, 68 AD3d 1083 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 705 [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1304, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-greene-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack