People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sutton

19 A.D.3d 1045, 796 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J), entered November 13, 2003. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The record establishes that defendant engaged in a continuous course of sexual misconduct and did not complete treatment because of a disciplinary problem. Consequently, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]; People v Barnwell, 6 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, 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 P Geraci, Jr., J), entered November 13, 2003. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The record establishes that defendant engaged in a continuous course of sexual misconduct and did not complete treatment because of a disciplinary problem. Consequently, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]; People v Barnwell, 6 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Sutton, 19 A.D.3d 1045, 796 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

19 A.D.3d 1045 (People v. Sutton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related