People v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 06 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | KA 08-01597. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00868,872 N.Y.S.2d 360,59 A.D.3d 1007 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MATTHEW J. WHEELER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), entered November 14, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court violated his due process rights when it determined, sua sponte, that a departure from the presumptive risk level based upon the risk assessment instrument was warranted. The court adjourned the SORA hearing after advising defendant that it was considering an upward departure, thus protecting his due process rights by affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond (see generally People v Warren, 42 AD3d 593, 594 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 810 [2007]; People v Jordan, 31 AD3d 1196 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the statements in the presentence report constitute "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Those statements, moreover, provide clear and convincing evidence that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted based upon "an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Gandy, 35 AD3d 1163 [2006]; People v Goodwin, 35 AD3d 1285 [2006]).
Present — MARTOCHE, J.P., FAHEY, GREEN, PINE and GORSKI, JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grady
...guidelines" ( People v. Howe, 49 A.D.3d 1302, 1302, 856 N.Y.S.2d 320 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Wheeler, 59 A.D.3d 1007, 872 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 711, 2009 WL 1309378). Contrary to the court's determination, "danger to the community" is not an aggravatin......
-
People v. Ferris
... ... factors 6 and 12 or an increase of points assessed under risk ... factor 2, and defendant learned of the assessment of ... additional points for the first time when the court issued ... its decision (see Hackett, 89 A.D.3d at 1480; ... cf. People v Wheeler, 59 A.D.3d 1007, 1008 [4th Dept ... 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 711 [2009]). However, the ... court's error was harmless inasmuch as defendant was ... already a presumptive level three risk based on the RAI ... prepared by the Board and recommended for adoption by the ... People (cf. People v ... ...
-
People v. Symonds
...[2006]; see People v. Shepard, 103 A.D.3d 1224, 1224, 958 N.Y.S.2d 858, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 2350362 ; People v. Wheeler, 59 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 872 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 711, 2009 WL 1309378 ). Here, there is clear and convincing evidence of "defendant's exploitati......
-
People v. Botindari
...guidelines” ( People v. Grady, 81 A.D.3d 1464, 1464, 917 N.Y.S.2d 798 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Wheeler, 59 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 872 N.Y.S.2d 360,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 711, 881 N.Y.S.2d 661, 909 N.E.2d 584). Here, there is clear and convincing evidence that defendant com......