People v. Lawson

90 A.D.3d 1006, 935 N.Y.2d 650
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1006 (People v. Lawson) 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. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d 1006, 935 N.Y.2d 650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In determining the defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex [1007]*1007Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders assessed the defendant 20 points under risk factor 13 on the risk assessment instrument (hereinafter the RAI). These points were based on the defendant’s commission of a tier II infraction involving his “lewd exposure to a female corrections officer” while he was incarcerated. The defendant contends that he was erroneously assessed these 20 points because, among other things, the lewd conduct did not amount to “sexual misconduct” as defined by the Penal Law. This contention is without merit.

The interpretation of the SORA Guidelines is a question of law for the court (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 117-118 [2011]). Here the court correctly interpreted risk factor 13 to include inappropriate sexual conduct in addition to, and of a lesser degree of severity than, the “sexual misconduct” defined in Penal Law § 130.20. In this regard, we note that the examples of “inappropriate sexual behavior” in the SORA Guidelines and Commentary which warrant the assessment of 20 points include “possessing pornography” or “sexual acting out” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 16-17 [2006]). Here, the defendant’s tier II infraction was far more serious than these examples. In addition, the People met their burden of adducing facts in support of the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 13 by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 117-118 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level three sex offender and a sexually violent offender. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Mazzio
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
People v. Bautista
210 A.D.3d 1020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Vidro
209 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Gulifield
2019 NY Slip Op 5706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Harrington
2019 NY Slip Op 2730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Dilillo
2018 NY Slip Op 4578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Hawthorne
2018 NY Slip Op 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Anderson
2017 NY Slip Op 4478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Kaff
2017 NY Slip Op 2684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Baluja
109 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 1006, 935 N.Y.2d 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawson-nyappdiv-2011.