Opinion
2012-06-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael ROTTERMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), entered June 3, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), entered June 3, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for respondent.
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.). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court complied with the statutory mandate to set forth “the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determination [is] based” (§ 168–n[3]; see People v. Carter, 35 A.D.3d 1023, 1023–1024, 825 N.Y.S.2d 830,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 810, 834 N.Y.S.2d 507, 866 N.E.2d 453). We reject defendant's further contention that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 30 points against him for being armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of one of the underlying crimes. That assessment is supported by the reliable hearsay contained in the case summary and the presentence report ( see People v. Thompson, 66 A.D.3d 1455, 1456, 885 N.Y.S.2d 828,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 714, 2009 WL 4845034;see generally People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that a downward departure from his presumptive risk level was warranted ( see People v. Quinones, 91 A.D.3d 1302, 1303, 937 N.Y.S.2d 780). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing ( see People v. Bowles, 89 A.D.3d 171, 181, 932 N.Y.S.2d 112,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 807, 2012 WL 489796).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.