People v Craig
2007 NY Slip Op 08599 [45 AD3d 1365]
November 9, 2007
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronnie Craig,Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Karen C. Russo-McLaughlin ofcounsel), for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered August 29,2006. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex OffenderRegistration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimouslyaffirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant tothe Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendantcontends that County Court's determination of his risk level is not supported by the requisite clearand convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. Thestatements in the case summary and presentence report with respect to defendant's conductconstitute reliable hearsay supporting the court's assessment of points under the risk factor fordeviate sexual intercourse (see People vVacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776[2006]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the former statute defining deviate sexual intercoursedid 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 heengaged in improper conduct while confined. "Here, the case summary, which constitutesreliable hearsay, sets forth that defendant committed a Tier III sex offense" (Vaughn, 26AD3d at 777). Furthermore, defendant admitted that he wrote a letter detailing a sexualrelationship with another inmate, and thus the court was entitled to discredit defendant's denial ofthe existence of that sexual relationship. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Greenand Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.