People v. Hands

37 A.D.3d 441, 829 N.Y.S.2d 224
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 6, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 441 (People v. Hands) 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. Hands, 37 A.D.3d 441, 829 N.Y.S.2d 224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), dated August 8, 2005, 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.

A departure from the presumptive risk level recommended by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) is warranted where “ ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ ” (People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [1997 ed]). The court’s finding in this regard must be supported by clear and convincing evidence (see People v Dexter, supra at 404; People v Valentine, 15 AD3d 463 [2005]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]; Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing testimony as well as the Board’s case summary provided clear and convincing evidence that aggravating factors existed which were not fully taken into account by the risk assessment instru[442]*442ment. Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in making an upward departure from the presumptive level two adjudication (see People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409 [2006]; People v White, 25 AD3d 677 [2006]; People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446 [2006]; People v Dexter, supra; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Mangan
2019 NY Slip Op 5458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Arciola
54 A.D.3d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Hill
50 A.D.3d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Fiol
49 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Liguori
48 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Montalvo
44 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Buss
44 A.D.3d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 441, 829 N.Y.S.2d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hands-nyappdiv-2007.