People v. Sinclair

23 A.D.3d 537, 806 N.Y.S.2d 609
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 537 (People v. Sinclair) 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. Sinclair, 23 A.D.3d 537, 806 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated August 6, 2003, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the hearing court should not have considered his 1984 violent felony conviction in determining his risk assessment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Cureton, 299 AD2d 532 [2002]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Victor R., 186 Misc 2d 28, 35-36 [2000]). Moreover, the prosecution presented clear and convincing evidence to support a risk level three classification, including the risk assessment instrument and case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see People v Burgess, 6 AD3d 686 [2004]; People v Moore, 1 AD3d 421 [2003]).

We note that the defendant’s risk assessment instrument pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) failed to reflect a 10-point reduction granted by the Supreme Court at the SORA hearing to take into account the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for his acts. However, the defendant’s score, as corrected, remains within the range of a level three sex offender.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Blaylock
125 A.D.3d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Seals
112 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Watson
109 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Velardo
80 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Marin
48 A.D.3d 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Fredlund
38 A.D.3d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Camacho
35 A.D.3d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Morales
33 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Barber
29 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Pierce
27 A.D.3d 1182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 A.D.3d 537, 806 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sinclair-nyappdiv-2005.