Opinion
2017-12791
01-22-2020
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Julio C. LEMA-CAGUANA, appellant.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant. Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the defendant was designated a level three sex offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the assessment of points under risk factors 4, 9, and 12.
In establishing a sex offender's appropriate risk level under SORA, "[t]he People ‘bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations’ by clear and convincing evidence" ( People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053, quoting 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 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571–572, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 ).
Here, we agree with the County Court's assessment of points under risk factors 4, 9, and 12 (see People v. Gulifield, 174 A.D.3d 751, 752, 102 N.Y.S.3d 297 ; People v. Somodi, 170 A.D.3d 1056, 94 N.Y.S.3d 586 ; People v. Francis, 137 A.D.3d 91, 100, 25 N.Y.S.3d 221, affd 30 N.Y.3d 737, 71 N.Y.S.3d 394, 94 N.E.3d 882 ). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the County Court's determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender.
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.