People v. Duff
Decision Date | 27 June 2012 |
Citation | 96 A.D.3d 1031,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05156,946 N.Y.S.2d 891 |
Parties | PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. William DUFF, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
96 A.D.3d 1031
946 N.Y.S.2d 891
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05156
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
William DUFF, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 27, 2012.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anne E. Oh of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated January 25, 2010, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding to determine the defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law § 168–a et seq.), the County Court properly relied upon the complainant's sworn statement to the police and grand jury testimony ( see Correction Law § 168–n[3]; People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408–409, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053;People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 574, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983;People v. Carleo, 82 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 918 N.Y.S.2d 795;People v. Neal, 73 A.D.3d 1145, 900 N.Y.S.2d 916;People v. Bolton, 50 A.D.3d 990, 857 N.Y.S.2d 190). Moreover, the County Court properly assessed the defendant 20 points under risk factor 6, as the complainant's sworn statement to the police and grand jury testimony established that the complainant was asleep at the beginning of the incident and was thus *892“physically helpless” ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11 [2006 ed.]; Penal Law § 130.00[7]; People v. Edwards, 93 A.D.3d 1210, 1211, 940 N.Y.S.2d 417;People v. Howell, 82 A.D.3d 857, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364;People v. Caban, 61 A.D.3d 834, 835, 877 N.Y.S.2d 403;People v. Vaughn, 26 A.D.3d 776, 777, 809 N.Y.S.2d 718;People v. Irving, 151 A.D.2d 605, 605–606, 542 N.Y.S.2d 693).
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wells
...e.g. People v. Acevedo, 124 A.D.3d 500, 998 N.Y.S.2d 621 ; People v. Richardson, 101 A.D.3d 837, 838, 957 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; People v. Duff, 96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 891 ; People v. Howell, 82 A.D.3d 857, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364 ; People v. Caban, 61 A.D.3d 834, 835, 877 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; People v. H......
-
People v. Morrison
...473; People v. Acevedo, 124 A.D.3d 500, 998 N.Y.S.2d 621 ; People v. Richardson, 101 A.D.3d 837, 838, 957 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; People v. Duff, 96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 891 ; People v. Howell, 82 A.D.3d 857, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364 ). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly asses......
-
People v. Smith
...(see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11 [2006]; Penal Law § 130.00[7] ; People v. Duff, 96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 891 ; People v. Rhodehouse, 88 A.D.3d 1030, 1031–1032, 930 N.Y.S.2d 105 ; People v. Caban, 61 A.D.3d 834, 877 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; Peopl......
-
People v. Richardson
...helpless, which supported the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 6 ( see Commentary at 11; Penal Law § 130.00[7]; People v. Duff, 96 A.D.3d 1031, 946 N.Y.S.2d 891,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 810, 2012 WL 3854541;People v. Howell, 82 A.D.3d 857, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364), and that the defendant had a......