People v. McDaniel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McDaniel

27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by51 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1158 (People v. McDaniel) 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. McDaniel, 27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered March 4, 2005. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s challenges to the points assigned by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) have merit and that the score should be reduced accordingly, we would nevertheless conclude that, even with those reductions, the score remains within the range of a level three risk (see generally People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006]). In any event, we conclude that the People met their [1159]*1159“burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level classification sought by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 24 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]; see People v Brown, 7 AD3d 831, 832 [2004]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “the facts contained in the case summary, which were not in dispute and upon which the court relied, provided the required evidentiary support” to establish the number of victims (People v Dorato, 291 AD2d 580, 581 [2002]). Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court should have departed from the recommendation of the Board inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure (see People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]; see also People v Arotin, 19 AD3d 845, 847 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered March 4, 2005. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s challenges to the points assigned by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) have merit and that the score should be reduced accordingly, we would nevertheless conclude that, even with those reductions, the score remains within the range of a level three risk (see generally People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006]). In any event, we conclude that the People met their [1159]*1159“burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level classification sought by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 24 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]; see People v Brown, 7 AD3d 831, 832 [2004]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “the facts contained in the case summary, which were not in dispute and upon which the court relied, provided the required evidentiary support” to establish the number of victims (People v Dorato, 291 AD2d 580, 581 [2002]). Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court should have departed from the recommendation of the Board inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure (see People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]; see also People v Arotin, 19 AD3d 845, 847 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcdaniel-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack