People v. Morris

140 A.D.3d 841, 35 N.Y.S.3d 112
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2016·No. 2013-02585·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated August 26, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the People’s contention, this appeal from an order designating the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) should not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has been deported (see People v Shim, 139 AD3d 68 [2d Dept 2016]; People v Ibarra, 137 AD3d 1097 [2016]).

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, the parole officer, or the correction counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board), or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571-573; People v Sanchez, 136 AD3d 1007 [2016]; People v Arocho, 130 AD3d 996, 997 [2015]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points against him under risk factor 4 for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct against the victim. The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, including the Board’s case summary, the presentence report, and the felony complaint (see People v Arocho, 130 AD3d at 997; People v DeJesus, 127 AD3d 1047 [2015]; People v Patronick, 117 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2014]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Morris, 140 A.D.3d 841, 35 N.Y.S.3d 112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

140 A.D.3d 841 (People v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Rodriguez
2021 NY Slip Op 03475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Vasquez
2018 NY Slip Op 8518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Tambriz
2018 NY Slip Op 4364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Pilozo
2017 NY Slip Op 5984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Alas
28 N.Y.3d 903 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)