People v. Shen Chao Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shen Chao Chen

2016 NY Slip Op 8056, 144 A.D.3d 1119, 42 N.Y.S.3d 284

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2016

Docket2013-03477

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8056 (People v. Shen Chao Chen) 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. Shen Chao Chen, 2016 NY Slip Op 8056, 144 A.D.3d 1119, 42 N.Y.S.3d 284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), dated March 12, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is designated a level one sex offender.

The defendant was assessed 75 points on the risk assessment instrument, rendering him presumptively a level two sex offender. The Supreme Court, after a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), assessed 75 points against the defendant and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant challenges the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1 for being armed with a dangerous instrument during the underlying incident. Without those 30 points, the defendant would be assessed only 45 points, rendering him presumptively a level one sex offender.

As the People correctly concede, they failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the underlying incident, thereby making the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1 improper (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 7-8 [2006]). At the SORA hearing, the defendant, through his counsel, asserted that he possessed a BB gun during the incident. However, the People did not present any evidence that the gun was loaded and operable, or that it was used as a bludgeoning object (see People v Swain, 46 AD3d 1157 [2007]). Furthermore, the People did not present any evidence that the defendant threatened to use the gun against the victims (cf. People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 409 [2010]; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 414-415 [1984]).

Accordingly, the defendant must be designated a level one sex offender.

*1120 In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention need not be reached.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Barros and Connolly, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), dated March 12, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is designated a level one sex offender.

The defendant was assessed 75 points on the risk assessment instrument, rendering him presumptively a level two sex offender. The Supreme Court, after a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), assessed 75 points against the defendant and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant challenges the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1 for being armed with a dangerous instrument during the underlying incident. Without those 30 points, the defendant would be assessed only 45 points, rendering him presumptively a level one sex offender.

As the People correctly concede, they failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the underlying incident, thereby making the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1 improper (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 7-8 [2006]). At the SORA hearing, the defendant, through his counsel, asserted that he possessed a BB gun during the incident. However, the People did not present any evidence that the gun was loaded and operable, or that it was used as a bludgeoning object (see People v Swain, 46 AD3d 1157 [2007]). Furthermore, the People did not present any evidence that the defendant threatened to use the gun against the victims (cf. People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 409 [2010]; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 414-415 [1984]).

Accordingly, the defendant must be designated a level one sex offender.

*1120 In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention need not be reached.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8056, 144 A.D.3d 1119, 42 N.Y.S.3d 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shen-chao-chen-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack