People v. Urrego

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Urrego

2016 NY Slip Op 8552, 145 A.D.3d 923, 42 N.Y.S.3d 841

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2016

Docket2015-01282

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8552 (People v. Urrego) 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. Urrego, 2016 NY Slip Op 8552, 145 A.D.3d 923, 42 N.Y.S.3d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), dated January 23, 2015, 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.

In this proceeding under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168 et seq.), insofar as relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 30 points under risk factor 3 (“Number of Victims”). In determining that the defendant had three victims, the court relied on the defendant’s plea of guilty as to one victim and grand jury testimony from two additional victims. We find no basis to *924 overturn the court’s determination that the grand jury testimony admitted in this case constituted clear and convincing evidence supporting the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 3 (see People v Carleo, 82 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2011]; cf. People v Tubbs, 124 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2015]; see generally People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572 [2009]; People v Wells, 138 AD3d 947, 950 [2016]). Accordingly, the court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, LaSalle 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), dated January 23, 2015, 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.

In this proceeding under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168 et seq.), insofar as relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 30 points under risk factor 3 (“Number of Victims”). In determining that the defendant had three victims, the court relied on the defendant’s plea of guilty as to one victim and grand jury testimony from two additional victims. We find no basis to *924 overturn the court’s determination that the grand jury testimony admitted in this case constituted clear and convincing evidence supporting the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 3 (see People v Carleo, 82 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2011]; cf. People v Tubbs, 124 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2015]; see generally People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572 [2009]; People v Wells, 138 AD3d 947, 950 [2016]). Accordingly, the court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8552, 145 A.D.3d 923, 42 N.Y.S.3d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-urrego-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack