People v. Hawkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hawkins

18 A.D.3d 637, 795 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304

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

DecidedMay 16, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 637 (People v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 18 A.D.3d 637, 795 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barros, J.), dated March 3, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-c, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is reclassified as a level two sex offender.

The People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used “forcible compulsion” as that term is defined in Penal Law § 130.00 (8) in the commission of the attempted rape of the complainant (see Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456, 472 [1998]; Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Accordingly, the 10-point assessment under risk factor 1 for “Used forcible compulsion” must be deducted bringing the defendant’s total risk factor score to 105, which falls within level two. Thus, the defendant is reclassified as a level two sex offender (see People v Collazo, 7 AD3d 595 [2004]).

[638]*638The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barros, J.), dated March 3, 2004, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-c, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is reclassified as a level two sex offender.

The People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used “forcible compulsion” as that term is defined in Penal Law § 130.00 (8) in the commission of the attempted rape of the complainant (see Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456, 472 [1998]; Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Accordingly, the 10-point assessment under risk factor 1 for “Used forcible compulsion” must be deducted bringing the defendant’s total risk factor score to 105, which falls within level two. Thus, the defendant is reclassified as a level two sex offender (see People v Collazo, 7 AD3d 595 [2004]).

[638]*638The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 637, 795 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hawkins-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack