People v. Seals
This text of 112 A.D.3d 803 (People v. Seals) 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
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated January 30, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The People presented clear and convincing evidence to support a risk level three classification (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]; People v Gilligan, 94 AD3d 844 [2012]). The defendant’s contention that the hearing court should not have considered his 1979 violent felony conviction in determining his risk assessment is without merit (see People v Kitt, 47 AD3d 456 [2008]; People v Camacho, 35 AD3d 424 [2006]; People v Oginski, 35 AD3d 952 [2006]; People v Sinclair, 23 AD3d 537 [2005]). In addition, there is no merit to the contention that the defendant was entitled to a downward departure to risk level two (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d [804]*804112 [2011]; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 A.D.3d 803, 976 N.Y.S.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seals-nyappdiv-2013.