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. Robert D. DOLAN, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.), entered January 11, 2005 in Rensselaer County, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to one year in jail. Supreme Court subsequently determined that defendant was a risk level III sex offender. Defendant now appeals, arguing that several of the factors considered by the court in assessing his risk level were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Initially, we note that the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders erred in failing to complete the entire risk assessment form based upon the existence of a presumptive override factor (see People v. Sanchez, 20 A.D.3d 693, 694, 798 N.Y.S.2d 258 [2005] ). However, in reaching its determination, Supreme Court specifically reviewed all of the evidence presented, addressed each relevant factor set forth in the guidelines and independently calculated defendant's risk factor score. Accordingly, we find that the Board's error was harmless in this case (see id. at 694-695, 798 N.Y.S.2d 258; People v. Brown, 302 A.D.2d 919, 920, 755 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2003] ).
We agree with defendant that the record does not contain adequate evidence to support Supreme Court's findings that he had contact with the victim under her clothing and that he engaged in a continuing course of sexual conduct (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11). However, the remaining factors considered by Supreme Court in calculating defendant's risk assessment score are sufficiently established by the presentence investigation report, the victim's statement and the Board's case summary (see People v. Hunt, 17 A.D.3d 713, 714, 792 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 763, 801 N.Y.S.2d 258, 834 N.E.2d 1268 [2005]; People v. Ahlers, 10 A.D.3d 770, 771, 781 N.Y.S.2d 797 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 704, 792 N.Y.S.2d 1, 825 N.E.2d 133 [2005] ). Accordingly, defendant's presumptive risk assessment score should be reduced by 30 points, for a total score of 110. Notwithstanding this reduction, defendant remains a presumptive risk level III sex offender based upon his score, as well as the existence of an override factor. Absent any mitigating circumstances requiring a downward departure from the presumptive risk level classification, we will not disturb Supreme Court's determination (see id.).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.
CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)