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.
People of State of New York, respondent, v. Harold McPherson, appellant.
Submitted—December 4, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), dated November 28, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6–C), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168–n[3]; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v. Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408). “ ‘In assessing points, evidence may be derived from ․ the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ․ or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay’ ” (People v. Barbour, 111 AD3d 813, 813–814, quoting People v. Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629; see Correction Law § 168–n[3]; SexOffender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; see also People v. Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571–572).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly assessed points under risk factor four, for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct against the victim. The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of those points through the victim's statement contained in the presentence report, which was supported by the indictment (see People v. Thompson, 111 AD3d 613; see also People v. Bright, 63 AD3d 1133, 1134; People v. Hines, 24 AD3d 524; cf. People v. Lacewell, 103 AD3d 784, 785).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.
SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, DICKERSON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2012–11072
Decided: February 05, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)