People v. Jean-Bart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jean-Bart

2016 NY Slip Op 8211, 145 A.D.3d 690, 41 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket2013-11393

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8211 (People v. Jean-Bart) 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. Jean-Bart, 2016 NY Slip Op 8211, 145 A.D.3d 690, 41 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated December 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

*691 Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented, where the defendant had already been released from prison before he became classified as a “sex offender” as a result of his conviction (Correction Law § 168-a [1]), the Supreme Court did not err in determining the defendant’s risk level, for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act, based on a risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office instead of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law §§ 168-d [3]; 168-l [8]; compare People v Grimm, 107 AD3d 1040 [2013], with People v Hernaiz, 126 AD3d 771 [2015], People v Grabowski, 126 AD3d 769 [2015], People v Game, 110 AD3d 861 [2013], and People v Black, 33 AD3d 981 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor 5 because the victim was between 11 and 16 years old (see People v Caban, 61 AD3d 834 [2009]), 10 points under risk factor 12 because the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2012]), 15 points under risk factor 14 because defendant was released without any parole, probation, or supervision (see People v Radage, 98 AD3d 1194 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 15 because of the defendant’s history of homelessness and uncertainty with respect to his future living arrangements (see People v Alemany, 13 NY3d 424 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Leventhal, J.R, Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, 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, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated December 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

*691 Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented, where the defendant had already been released from prison before he became classified as a “sex offender” as a result of his conviction (Correction Law § 168-a [1]), the Supreme Court did not err in determining the defendant’s risk level, for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act, based on a risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office instead of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law §§ 168-d [3]; 168-l [8]; compare People v Grimm, 107 AD3d 1040 [2013], with People v Hernaiz, 126 AD3d 771 [2015], People v Grabowski, 126 AD3d 769 [2015], People v Game, 110 AD3d 861 [2013], and People v Black, 33 AD3d 981 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor 5 because the victim was between 11 and 16 years old (see People v Caban, 61 AD3d 834 [2009]), 10 points under risk factor 12 because the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2012]), 15 points under risk factor 14 because defendant was released without any parole, probation, or supervision (see People v Radage, 98 AD3d 1194 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 15 because of the defendant’s history of homelessness and uncertainty with respect to his future living arrangements (see People v Alemany, 13 NY3d 424 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Leventhal, J.R, Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8211, 145 A.D.3d 690, 41 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jean-bart-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack