People v. LeGrand

2017 NY Slip Op 5758, 152 A.D.3d 722, 55 N.Y.S.3d 905
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 2017·No. 2015-04856·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated April 29, 2015, 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.

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People have “the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 117-118 [2011]). “In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board ... or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006] [hereinafter SORA Guidelines]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 3, based upon two victims (see SORA Guidelines at 10; People v Madera, 100 AD3d 1111 [2012]; People v Kruger, 88 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2011]), and 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see SORA Guidelines at 16-17; People v Bush, 105 AD3d 1179, 1180-1181 [2013]; People v Crandall, 90 AD3d at 630; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820-821 [2010]; People v Ealy, 55 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit (see People v Noble, 146 AD3d 824 [2017]; People v Benitez, 140 AD3d 1140 [2016]; People v Angelo, 3 AD3d 482 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

People v. LeGrand, 2017 NY Slip Op 5758, 152 A.D.3d 722, 55 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

2017 NY Slip Op 5758 (People v. LeGrand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Mazzio
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
People v. Gorostiza
210 A.D.3d 1118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Reyes
165 N.Y.S.3d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Brown
2021 NY Slip Op 03068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Levy
2021 NY Slip Op 08266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Guadeloupe
2019 NY Slip Op 4736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Padgett
2019 NY Slip Op 2131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Holmes
2018 NY Slip Op 7764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Littles
2017 NY Slip Op 8291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)