People v. Rouff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rouff

49 A.D.3d 517, 855 N.Y.2d 157

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 517 (People v. Rouff) 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. Rouff, 49 A.D.3d 517, 855 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor number 4 (continuing course of sexual misconduct), based on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in several acts of sexual contact with the child victim over a period of approximately 2 years (see People v Mingo, 49 AD3d 148 [2d Dept 2008]; People v Atkinson, 34 AD3d 551 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379, 382-384 [1997]).

The defendant was also properly assessed 15 points under risk factor number 12, based on his failure to accept responsibility for the underlying offenses, coupled with his expulsion from a sex offender treatment program in 2001 (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689 [2007]; People v Morales, 33 AD3d 982 [2006]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor number 14 because of the defendant’s unsupervised release from prison (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689 [2007]).

In light of the above, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor number 4 (continuing course of sexual misconduct), based on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in several acts of sexual contact with the child victim over a period of approximately 2 years (see People v Mingo, 49 AD3d 148 [2d Dept 2008]; People v Atkinson, 34 AD3d 551 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379, 382-384 [1997]).

The defendant was also properly assessed 15 points under risk factor number 12, based on his failure to accept responsibility for the underlying offenses, coupled with his expulsion from a sex offender treatment program in 2001 (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689 [2007]; People v Morales, 33 AD3d 982 [2006]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor number 14 because of the defendant’s unsupervised release from prison (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689 [2007]).

In light of the above, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 517, 855 N.Y.2d 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rouff-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack