SEABOLT, ADAM J., PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2017
DocketKA 15-02153
StatusPublished

This text of SEABOLT, ADAM J., PEOPLE v (SEABOLT, ADAM J., PEOPLE v) 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
SEABOLT, ADAM J., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

288 KA 15-02153 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ADAM J. SEABOLT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S. Ciaccio, J.), entered November 24, 2015. 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 is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). As the People correctly concede, County Court erred in applying an incorrect standard of proof when it granted the People’s request for an upward departure to a level three risk. The court found the existence of the aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, but it is well settled that, “because Correction Law § 168-n (3) compels the People to prove the existence of facts supporting a defendant’s overall risk level classification by clear and convincing evidence, the People cannot obtain an upward departure pursuant to the guidelines unless they prove the existence of [the alleged] aggravating circumstances by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861- 862). We therefore reverse the order, and we remit the matter to County Court for a determination of the People’s request for an upward departure, following a further hearing if necessary.

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Gillotti
18 N.E.3d 701 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SEABOLT, ADAM J., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seabolt-adam-j-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.