People v. Guichardo

2017 NY Slip Op 330, 146 A.D.3d 910, 44 N.Y.S.3d 768
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 18, 2017
Docket2014-10876
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 330 (People v. Guichardo) 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. Guichardo, 2017 NY Slip Op 330, 146 A.D.3d 910, 44 N.Y.S.3d 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), dated November 13, 2014, 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.

The defendant appeals from an order designating him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA).

“In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). “In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation offi *911 cer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . , or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d at 629). Here, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points against the defendant under risk factor 11 and 15 points against him under risk factor 12. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Phillips
2018 NY Slip Op 2349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Dipilato
2017 NY Slip Op 7759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Cosby
2017 NY Slip Op 7153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Guichardo
29 N.Y.3d 904 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 330, 146 A.D.3d 910, 44 N.Y.S.3d 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guichardo-nyappdiv-2017.