Court Opinion

ID: 4116671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-18 21:10:12.529396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:14.826191
License: Public Domain

People v Guichardo (2017 NY Slip Op 00330)

People v Guichardo

2017 NY Slip Op 00330

Decided on January 18, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 18, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SANDRA L. SGROI
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2014-10876

[*1]People of State of New York, respondent,
vReinaldo Guichardo, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Michael C. Taglieri of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), dated November 13, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant appeals from an order designating him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C; hereinafter SORA).
"In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629; see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). "In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . , or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay" (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d at 629). Here, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points against the defendant under risk factor 11 and 15 points against him under risk factor 12. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, SGROI and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court