People v. Sacco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sacco

17 A.D.3d 711, 791 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3631

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

DecidedApril 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 711 (People v. Sacco) 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. Sacco, 17 A.D.3d 711, 791 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), entered January 20, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

[712]*712We reject defendant’s contention that he was improperly classified as a risk level III sex offender prior to his release from prison on convictions of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant’s prior felony conviction of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree presumptively placed him in the risk level III category (see e.g People v Boan, 11 AD3d 956 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Scott, 288 AD2d 763, 764 [2001]). Moreover, County Court considered defendant’s extensive criminal history, the facts surrounding his recent convictions and the conditions of his then impending release, factors which alone justified the classification (see People v Scott, supra at 764-765). In short, County Court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and will not be disturbed (see id. at 765).

Defendant’s remaining contention regarding the timing of his assignment of counsel has been considered and is unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), entered January 20, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

[712]*712We reject defendant’s contention that he was improperly classified as a risk level III sex offender prior to his release from prison on convictions of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant’s prior felony conviction of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree presumptively placed him in the risk level III category (see e.g People v Boan, 11 AD3d 956 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Scott, 288 AD2d 763, 764 [2001]). Moreover, County Court considered defendant’s extensive criminal history, the facts surrounding his recent convictions and the conditions of his then impending release, factors which alone justified the classification (see People v Scott, supra at 764-765). In short, County Court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and will not be disturbed (see id. at 765).

Defendant’s remaining contention regarding the timing of his assignment of counsel has been considered and is unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 711, 791 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sacco-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack