People v. Rashad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rashad

118 A.D.3d 629, 987 N.Y.S.2d 852

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

DecidedJune 24, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 629 (People v. Rashad) 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. Rashad, 118 A.D.3d 629, 987 N.Y.S.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about August 6, 2007, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in finding defendant a level three risk, based on his extensive criminal history, including the seriousness of a prior conviction involving the death of one victim and serious injury to another, and of the underlying sex crime, which involved choking the victim until [630]*630she was unconscious and multiple sexual acts. These aggravating factors were not adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument (see e.g. People v Jardin, 57 AD3d 229 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 703 [2009]), and, as a result, there was no improper double counting.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about August 6, 2007, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in finding defendant a level three risk, based on his extensive criminal history, including the seriousness of a prior conviction involving the death of one victim and serious injury to another, and of the underlying sex crime, which involved choking the victim until [630]*630she was unconscious and multiple sexual acts. These aggravating factors were not adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument (see e.g. People v Jardin, 57 AD3d 229 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 703 [2009]), and, as a result, there was no improper double counting.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 629, 987 N.Y.S.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rashad-nyappdiv-2014.