People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 14 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 518348 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04175,9 N.Y.S.3d 462,128 A.D.3d 1189 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamie S. SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 1189
9 N.Y.S.3d 462
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04175
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Jamie S. SMITH, Appellant.
518348
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 14, 2015.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
Glenn MacNeill, Acting District Attorney, Malone (Jennifer Hollis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), entered December 17, 2013, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sexual act in the third degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (People v. Smith, 84 A.D.3d 1592, 922 N.Y.S.2d 662 [2011] ). As his release from prison neared, the Board of Examiners of Sex
Offenders completed a risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C). Following a hearing, County Court agreed with the Board's recommendation. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that the People did not provide clear and convincing evidence that there was a third victim for the purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act so as to support the 30 points assessed pursuant to risk factor 3. The People may use reliable hearsay, including case summaries and victim statements, to establish the appropriateness of a point assessment (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571–574, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009] ; see generally Correction Law § 168–n[3] ). Further, a
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown, 106037
...964 N.Y.S.2d 483, 987 N.E.2d 260 ). Hence, no impermissible bolstering of the victim's testimony occurred. Under these circumstances, 128 A.D.3d 1189County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Dietz's testimony on the issue of CSAAS.4 Finally, we find no merit to defendant's cla......
-
People v. Current
...of points in the RAI under "current offenses" and has not applied it to the offender's "criminal history" (see People v. Smith, 128 A.D.3d 1189, 1189–1190, 9 N.Y.S.3d 462 [2015] ; People v. Tubbs, 124 A.D.3d 1094, 1094–1095, 1 N.Y.S.3d 561 [2015] ; People v. Snay, 122 A.D.3d 1012, 1013, 995......
-
People v. Lightaul
...view, this evidence provides clear and convincing evidence to support County Court's determination (see 138 A.D.3d 1258 People v. Smith, 128 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 9 N.Y.S.3d 462 [2015] ; People v. Nash, 114 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 980 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2014] ; People v. Thornton, 34 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, ......
-
People v. Deming
...hearsay, including case summaries and victim statements, to establish the appropriateness of a point assessment" ( People v. Smith, 128 A.D.3d 1189, 1189, 9 N.Y.S.3d 462 [2015] ; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571–572, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009] ; 155 A.D.3d 1263 People v.......