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. James WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Except as noted, the People met their burden of establishing various risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. We agree with defendant that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he received regular parole supervision. Accordingly, the court should not have assessed five points for that category. Even without those five points, defendant is left with more than enough points for a level three classification. We reject defendant's arguments concerning other risk factors at issue. The court also correctly declined to reduce defendant's status to level two because the factors that he alleged to demonstrate his lower risk of committing another sexual offense did not establish a special circumstance warranting a downward departure (see People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545, 778 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2004] ).
Defendant's challenge to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law § 168-l[5] ) is unavailing (see People v. Joe, 26 A.D.3d 300, 810 N.Y.S.2d 63 [2006] ), lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 703, 819 N.Y.S.2d 870, 853 N.E.2d 241 [2006]; (see also People v. Bligen, 33 A.D.3d 489, 823 N.Y.S.2d 42 [2006], decided simultaneously herewith). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
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: October 24, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)