People v. Robertson

101 A.D.3d 1671, 956 N.Y.2d 378
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1671 (People v. Robertson) 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. Robertson, 101 A.D.3d 1671, 956 N.Y.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in assessing 30 points against him under risk factor 3, for having three or more victims. “[I]t is well settled that, in determining the number of victims for SORA purposes, the hearing court is not limited to the crime of which defendant was convicted” (People v Gardiner, 92 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]). Here, the court properly considered “reliable hearsay evidence,” including defendant’s statements to the police, in [1672]*1672determining the number of victims (§ 168-n [3]; see People v Christie, 94 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 808 [2012]).

The court also properly denied defendant’s request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level based upon his young age at the time of the underlying offenses. A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where “there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v Cummings, 81 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 711 [2011]). Here, the guidelines adequately addressed defendant’s age when he committed his first sex crime, and the court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 because, at age 20 or less, he committed a sex offense that resulted in an adjudication or a conviction of a sex crime. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Taylor
2021 NY Slip Op 05432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Stephensbush
2019 NY Slip Op 3830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Diaz
2019 NY Slip Op 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Butler
2018 NY Slip Op 181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
VASQUEZ, BENANCIO, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
People v. Vasquez
149 A.D.3d 1584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Current
147 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Filkins
128 A.D.3d 1231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Menjivar
121 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 1671, 956 N.Y.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robertson-nyappdiv-2012.