People v. Valentine
This text of 15 A.D.3d 463 (People v. Valentine) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), dated January 10, 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, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel at the hearing, conducted pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, which resulted in his designation as a level three sex offender (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482 [1999]).
The defendant did not demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of any circumstances which would warrant a departure from the presumptive risk level assigned to him under the Risk [464]*464Assessment Instrument (see People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]; Matter of Vandover v Czajka, 276 AD2d 945 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant a level three sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-m; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]; People v Bottisti, 285 AD2d 841 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 A.D.3d 463, 789 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valentine-nyappdiv-2005.