Case Title: The People v. Avery Pettigrew

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2010-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 51  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Avery Pettigrew,
            Appellant.
Nancy E. Little, for appellant.
Mary C. Farrington, for respondent.
JONES, J.:
The issue before this Court is whether the People
proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was armed
with a dangerous instrument for the purposes of classifying him a
level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act
- 2 -
No. 051
- 2 -
(SORA).  We hold that defendant's display of a gun to the victim
and its threatened use constitute clear and convincing evidence
that he was armed with a dangerous instrument during the
commission of the crime in the context of a SORA hearing. 
In 2003, defendant Avery Pettigrew pleaded guilty to
rape in the first degree based on an incident earlier that year
in which he forcibly raped a 16-year-old girl, and was sentenced
to a term of five years incarceration followed by five years
post-release supervision.  In April 2007, prior to defendant's
conditional release, a SORA proceeding was conducted for the
purpose of determining his risk level.  The Risk Assessment
Instrument (RAI) prepared for the hearing, assessed defendant 120
points, designating him a presumptive level three sex offender. 
The Board of Examiners also prepared a case summary prior to the
SORA hearing.  According to this case summary, while in pursuit
of the victim, defendant said to her "if I can't have you, no one
will."  He followed her into the stairwell of her apartment
building and choked her.  Then, defendant showed the victim a gun
sticking out of his waistband, tore her pants down and raped her. 
Afterwards, defendant informed the victim that he would shoot her
if she told anyone.  
At the SORA hearing, defendant disputed the 30 points
the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders assessed under factor one
for having been armed with a dangerous instrument.  Defendant
specifically argued that the People failed to prove by clear and
- 3 -
No. 051
1  "This evidence can be derived from the sex offender's
admissions; the victim's statements . . . or from any other
reliable source" (id.). 
- 3 -
convincing evidence that the gun he possessed during the rape 
was loaded and operable; proof that some appellate courts have
required in first degree robbery cases based on a "use or the
threatened use of a dangerous instrument" theory.  Supreme Court
rejected defendant's argument, adopted the Board's findings, and
adjudicated defendant a level three offender.  The Appellate
Division unanimously affirmed (People v Pettigrew, 56 AD3d 276
[2009]).  We now affirm.  
A SORA proceeding, which is civil in nature, determines
the risk of reoffense by a person convicted of a qualifying sex
offense and requires that individual to register with law
enforcement officials according to that risk level (see People v
Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 570-571 [2009]).  The People "bear the burden
of proving the facts supporting the determinations" by clear and
convincing evidence (Correction Law § 168-n[3]).  According to
the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, points in the RAI
"should not be assessed for a factor . . . unless there is clear
and convincing evidence of the existence of that factor" (Board
of Examiners of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration Act:
Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, ¶ 7, at 5 [2006]).1  
Indeed, we held that the RAI case summaries, such as the one
prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in this case,
"meet the 'reliable hearsay' standard for admissibility at SORA
- 4 -
No. 051
- 4 -
proceedings" (Mingo, 12 NY2d at 573).  The risk level suggested
by the RAI, however, is merely presumptive, and the assigning of
a risk level is within the sound discretion of the SORA court
(see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). 
Here, the People proved by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument
during the commission of the offense.  A "[d]angerous instrument
means 'any instrument, article or substance, which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or
threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or
other serious physical injury" (Board of Examiners of Sex
Offenders, Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment
Guidelines and Commentary, at 8 [2006], citing Penal Law §
10.00[13]).  Defendant's display of the gun to the victim and
threat to shoot her constitute clear and convincing evidence that
the gun was a dangerous instrument (see People v Dodt, 61 NY2d
408, 415 [1984] ["a threat to use a gun . . . can only be
understood as a threat that the weapon is operable"]; see also
People v Walker, 15 AD3d 692, 692 [3d Dept 2005] [pulling out a
gun and placing it to the victim's head was clear and convincing
evidence under the RAI and SORA Guidelines that the defendant was
armed with a dangerous instrument]).  We therefore reject
defendant's assertion that points should not be assessed under
this SORA factor absent evidence that the gun was loaded and
- 5 -
No. 051
2  Indeed, if defendant "used, threatened to use or
attempted to use" the gun as a bludgeon, it clearly would qualify
as a dangerous instrument (see McLaughlin v United States, 476 US
16, 18 [1986]; see also People v Colavito, 126 AD2d 554 [2d Dept
1987]).
- 5 -
operable.2  Thus, viewing the record as a whole, the People have
met their burden that defendant was armed with a dangerous
instrument.  
Accordingly, the order should be affirmed, without
costs. 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, without costs.  Opinion by Judge Jones.  Chief
Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and
Pigott concur.
Decided April 6, 2010