People v. Palmer

88 A.D.3d 676, 930 N.Y.2d 489
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Palmer. Read the opinion of the Court — 68 A.D.3d 1364

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factor 11, pertaining to “[d]rug or [a]lcohol [a]buse,” based upon his admission that he was using alcohol at the time of the offense (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006]; see People v Sterling, 71 AD3d 654 [2010]; People v Britt, 66 AD3d 853 [2009]; People v Carpenter, 60 AD3d 833 [2009]). Accordingly, the defendant [677]*677was properly designated a level two sex offender. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Palmer, 88 A.D.3d 676, 930 N.Y.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

88 A.D.3d 676 (People v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Carpenter
60 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Britt
66 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Sterling
71 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)