People v. Shattuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shattuck

37 A.D.3d 1041, 828 N.Y.S.2d 744

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1041 (People v. Shattuck) 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. Shattuck, 37 A.D.3d 1041, 828 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered June 20, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant contends in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject that contention. The court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]; People v Auld, 24 AD3d 1249 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]; People v Heichel, 20 AD3d 934, 935 [2005]). “If the risk of a repeat offense is high and there is a threat to the public safety, a level three designation is appropriate” (Heichel, 20 AD3d at 935). Here, an upward departure was war[1042]*1042ranted based upon defendant’s prior sex offenses and history of substance abuse, which together indicated that defendant had a high risk to reoffend that was not adequately taken into account in the risk assessment instrument (see People v Bottisti, 285 AD2d 841, 842 [2001]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Lunn, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered June 20, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant contends in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject that contention. The court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]; People v Auld, 24 AD3d 1249 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]; People v Heichel, 20 AD3d 934, 935 [2005]). “If the risk of a repeat offense is high and there is a threat to the public safety, a level three designation is appropriate” (Heichel, 20 AD3d at 935). Here, an upward departure was war[1042]*1042ranted based upon defendant’s prior sex offenses and history of substance abuse, which together indicated that defendant had a high risk to reoffend that was not adequately taken into account in the risk assessment instrument (see People v Bottisti, 285 AD2d 841, 842 [2001]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Lunn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1041, 828 N.Y.S.2d 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shattuck-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack