People v. Sandoval
This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 7214 (People v. Sandoval) 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.
Opinion
| People v Sandoval |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 07214 |
| Decided on October 8, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 8, 2019
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, JJ.
10012 2907/09
v
Ruben Sandoval, Defendant-Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), entered on or about May 13, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly assessed 15 points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Defendant's statements to correction officials that he was under the influence of the alcohol and marijuana at the time of the offense, and that he abused those substances, which led him to be referred to a substance abuse program, constituted clear and convincing evidence supported a finding of drug and alcohol abuse (see People v Palmer, 20 NY3d 373, 378-379 [2013]; People v Van Phu Bui, 156 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2017]).
The court properly assessed 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined. Defendant incurred a tier II and two tier III disciplinary violations during his five years of incarceration, and one of the tier III violations was incurred less than four months before the Board's assessment. In this case, the seriousness, rather than the number, of the infractions warranted the point assessment (see People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 821 [2d Dept 2010][single tier III], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; People v Chabrier, 38 AD3d 355 [1st Dept 2007][same], lv denied 9 NY3d 801 [2007]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 8, 2019
CLERK
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 NY Slip Op 7214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sandoval-nyappdiv-2019.