People v. Irving

45 A.D.3d 1389, 846 N.Y.S.2d 487
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1389 (People v. Irving) 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. Irving, 45 A.D.3d 1389, 846 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), entered June 2, 2006. 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 pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in assessing 30 points against him under the risk factor for the number and nature of prior crimes based on his previous youthful offender adjudication. In the context of the criminal history section of the risk assessment instrument, “the term ‘crime’ includes criminal convictions, youthful offender adjudications and juvenile delinquency findings. The Board [of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board)] concluded that these determinations are reliable indicators of wrongdoing and therefore should be considered in assessing an offender’s likelihood of reoffense and danger to [1390]*1390public safety” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 6 [Nov. 1997]). “Although an adjudication as a youthful offender is not a conviction, it constitutes a reliable determination that an offender committed the underlying criminal conduct” (id. at 6 n 6; see People v Compton, 38 AD2d 788 [1972]; see also People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 607 [2004]).

We reject defendant’s further contention that the court improperly relied on the case summary because it was not signed by a member of the Board. Defendant cites no authority for that contention, and we have previously determined that a case summary contains reliable hearsay upon which the court is entitled to rely (see e.g. People v Castleberry, 43 AD3d 1369 [2007]; People v Ramos, 41 AD3d 1250 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Williams
122 A.D.3d 1378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Irizarry
98 A.D.3d 1193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
QUINONES, DAVID, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Quinones
91 A.D.3d 1302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
LONG, CORNELL, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
People v. Long
81 A.D.3d 1432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Stacconi
81 A.D.3d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Thomas
59 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 1389, 846 N.Y.S.2d 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-irving-nyappdiv-2007.