People v Irving
2007 NY Slip Op 08634 [45 AD3d 1389]
November 9, 2007
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry T.Irving, Appellant.

[*1]Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (Esther Cohen Lee of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), entered June 2,2006. 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: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three riskpursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Wereject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in assessing 30 points against himunder the risk factor for the number and nature of prior crimes based on his previous youthfuloffender adjudication. In the context of the criminal history section of the risk assessmentinstrument, "the term 'crime' includes criminal convictions, youthful offender adjudications andjuvenile delinquency findings. The Board [of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board)] concludedthat these determinations are reliable indicators of wrongdoing and therefore should beconsidered in assessing an offender's likelihood of reoffense and danger to public safety" (SexOffender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 6 [Nov. 1997])."Although an adjudication as a youthful offender is not a conviction, it constitutes a reliabledetermination that an offender committed the underlying criminal conduct" (id. at 6 n 6;see People v Compton, 38 AD2d 788 [1972]; see also People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124 [2004], lv denied3 NY3d 607 [2004]).

We reject defendant's further contention that the court improperly relied on the case summarybecause it was not signed by a member of the Board. Defendant cites no authority for thatcontention, and we have previously determined that a case summary contains reliable hearsayupon which the court is entitled to rely (see e.g. People v Castleberry, 43 AD3d 1369 [2007]; People v Ramos, 41 AD3d 1250[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche,Lunn and Peradotto, 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.