Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronnie CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.
On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court's determination of his risk level is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3] ). We reject that contention. The statements in the case summary and presentence report with respect to defendant's conduct constitute reliable hearsay supporting the court's assessment of points under the risk factor for deviate sexual intercourse (see People v. Vacanti, 26 A.D.3d 732, 807 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 714, 816 N.Y.S.2d 750, 849 N.E.2d 973; People v. Vaughn, 26 A.D.3d 776, 809 N.Y.S.2d 718). Contrary to defendant's contention, the former statute defining deviate sexual intercourse did not require penetration but, rather, only contact between the penis and the anus was required (see Penal Law former § 130.00[2] ).
We likewise reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in determining that he engaged in improper conduct while confined. “Here, the case summary, which constitutes reliable hearsay, sets forth that defendant committed a Tier III sex offense” (Vaughn, 26 A.D.3d at 777, 809 N.Y.S.2d 718). Furthermore, defendant admitted that he wrote a letter detailing a sexual relationship with another inmate, and thus the court was entitled to discredit defendant's denial of the existence of that sexual relationship.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 09, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)