People v. Wimberly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wimberly

34 A.D.3d 292, 824 N.Y.S.2d 80

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 292 (People v. Wimberly) 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. Wimberly, 34 A.D.3d 292, 824 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about February 28, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing various risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. Even if defendant’s out-of-state robbery convictions did not qualify as prior violent felonies for sex offender classification purposes, they at least qualified as felonies for such purposes (cf. Penal Law 10.00 [5]; People v Parker, 41 NY2d 21 [1976]; People v Ortiz, 283 AD2d 256 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]). Therefore, even if the court should have assessed 15 points under the criminal history category for a prior felony, instead of 30 points for a prior violent felony, the total would have been 115 points, which is still above the amount required for a level three adjudication.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments regarding this risk factor, as well his challenges to other points assessed by the court. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about February 28, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing various risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. Even if defendant’s out-of-state robbery convictions did not qualify as prior violent felonies for sex offender classification purposes, they at least qualified as felonies for such purposes (cf. Penal Law 10.00 [5]; People v Parker, 41 NY2d 21 [1976]; People v Ortiz, 283 AD2d 256 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]). Therefore, even if the court should have assessed 15 points under the criminal history category for a prior felony, instead of 30 points for a prior violent felony, the total would have been 115 points, which is still above the amount required for a level three adjudication.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments regarding this risk factor, as well his challenges to other points assessed by the court. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 292, 824 N.Y.S.2d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wimberly-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack