Opinion
2017–02944
04-10-2019
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Evan D. HARRINGTON, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Justine M. Luongo and Anita Aboagye–Agyeman of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Justine M. Luongo and Anita Aboagye–Agyeman of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Steven W. Paynter, J.), dated March 1, 2017, 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.
A grand jury indicted the defendant on various charges, including sex trafficking, kidnapping in the first degree, and rape in the first degree. The defendant pleaded guilty to the sex trafficking charge in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years. Thereafter, the Supreme Court conducted a risk level assessment hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6–C; hereinafter SORA) and designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appeals.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing to support the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see People v. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 118, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). The defendant's unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct during his incarceration was established by the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571–573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ), which stated that the defendant had received a lewd conduct violation while incarcerated (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 16–17 [2006]; see also 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][2][iii]; see generally People v. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d at 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 650 ).
Contrary to the defendant's further contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the SORA proceeding (see People v. Webb, 162 A.D.3d 918, 919, 75 N.Y.S.3d 260 ; People v. Bowles, 89 A.D.3d 171, 179–181, 932 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; see also People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination designating the defendant a level three sex offender.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.