People v. Samayoa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Samayoa

96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedJune 27, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1031 (People v. Samayoa) 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. Samayoa, 96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 2, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

[1032]*1032Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court’s designation of the defendant as a level two sexually violent offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; People v Atkinson, 65 AD3d 1112 [2009]; People v Bright, 63 AD3d 1133 [2009]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404, 406 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 1 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter SORA Guidelines], at 7-8 [2006]; Penal Law § 130.00 [8]; § 130.65 [1]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 704 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 12 (see SORA Guidelines, at 15-16; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571; People v Deturris, 90 AD3d 727 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718 [2010]; People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007]; People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 2, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

[1032]*1032Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court’s designation of the defendant as a level two sexually violent offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; People v Atkinson, 65 AD3d 1112 [2009]; People v Bright, 63 AD3d 1133 [2009]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404, 406 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 1 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter SORA Guidelines], at 7-8 [2006]; Penal Law § 130.00 [8]; § 130.65 [1]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 704 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 12 (see SORA Guidelines, at 15-16; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571; People v Deturris, 90 AD3d 727 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718 [2010]; People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007]; People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-samayoa-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack