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. Richard MOLLENKOPF, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.), entered July 11, 2007, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted sodomy in the second degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. In anticipation of defendant's release from custody, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders gave defendant a risk assessment score of 100, thereby presumptively classifying him as a risk level II sex offender, but recommended an upward departure to risk level III status. Following a hearing, County Court assigned defendant an additional 20 points under the category of relationship with the victim, thus raising his risk assessment score to 120 and placing him in the risk level III range. As a result, the court classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender.
Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that County Court erred in assigning him 20 risk assessment points based upon his relationship with the victim, the absence of which would afford him risk level II status. We disagree. Although the record contains evidence that defendant had long known the victim, was friends with the victim's father and lived with the victim's aunt, the case summary and the victim's sworn statements provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant cultivated his relationship with the victim in order to sexually abuse him (see People v. Grosfeld, 35 A.D.3d 692, 693, 826 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2006] ). Accordingly, we conclude that County Court appropriately assigned 20 points in connection with the category of relationship with the victim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
KAVANAGH, J.
CARDONA, P.J., CARPINELLO, ROSE and KANE, 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: September 25, 2008
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)