WALKER, ANTWANE, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WALKER, ANTWANE, PEOPLE v

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2015

DocketKA 14-01229

StatusPublished

This text of WALKER, ANTWANE, PEOPLE v (WALKER, ANTWANE, 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

WALKER, ANTWANE, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

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

201 KA 14-01229 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTWANE WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J. Miller, J.), dated June 13, 2014. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court’s determination that defendant is a level two risk is based upon clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]). The evidence supports the court’s determination that defendant’s primary purpose in establishing the relationship with the victim was to victimize her (see People v Washington, 91 AD3d 1277, 1277, lv denied 19 NY3d 801). Defendant approached the victim on a bus and thereafter initiated contact with her through Facebook and by cell phone, even though she had not given defendant her last name or cell phone number. Defendant then persistently texted the victim and invited her to dinner, but instead took her to a hotel where he raped her. “[T]he self-serving denial of defendant that he established the relationship for the purpose of victimizing the victim presented an issue of credibility for the court” (People v Romana, 35 AD3d 1241, 1242, lv denied 8 NY3d 810).

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

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

201 KA 14-01229 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTWANE WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J. Miller, J.), dated June 13, 2014. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court’s determination that defendant is a level two risk is based upon clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]). The evidence supports the court’s determination that defendant’s primary purpose in establishing the relationship with the victim was to victimize her (see People v Washington, 91 AD3d 1277, 1277, lv denied 19 NY3d 801). Defendant approached the victim on a bus and thereafter initiated contact with her through Facebook and by cell phone, even though she had not given defendant her last name or cell phone number. Defendant then persistently texted the victim and invited her to dinner, but instead took her to a hotel where he raped her. “[T]he self-serving denial of defendant that he established the relationship for the purpose of victimizing the victim presented an issue of credibility for the court” (People v Romana, 35 AD3d 1241, 1242, lv denied 8 NY3d 810).

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

WALKER, ANTWANE, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-antwane-people-v-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack