Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis Ramos, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 147 A.D.3d 1090
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Ramos, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 1090–1091

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Ramos, Appellant.
[46 NYS3d 906]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated July 3, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]). The defendant's post-plea statement to the Probation Department — which is contained in the pre-sentence investigation report and, therefore, constitutes admissible hearsay evidence for SORA purposes (see People v Picari ello, 145 AD3d 804 [2016]; People v Lucius, 122 AD3d 819 [2014]; People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]) — provided clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his conduct (see People v Benitez, 140 AD3d 1140, 1140-1141 [2016]; People v Thompson, 95 AD3d 977, 978 [2012]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]).
Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.