| People v Catchings |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08839 [56 AD3d 1181] |
| November 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleve L.Catchings, Appellant. |
—[*1] R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Kathleen H. Valone of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), entered August 9,2007. 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 is unanimously affirmed 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 assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7, 30 points under riskfactor 9, and 10 points under risk factor 13 is not supported by clear and convincing evidence(see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention (see People v Jordan, 31 AD3d 1196 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Hegazy,25 AD3d 675, 676 [2006]). With respect to risk factor 7, the record demonstrates that thecourt rejected the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and in fact didnot assess defendant any points under that risk factor. With respect to risk factor 9, concerningthe nature of defendant's prior crimes, the court properly concluded that defendant's prior juveniledelinquent adjudication for endangering the welfare of a child warranted a 30-point assessmentunder that risk factor (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelinesand Commentary, at 13-14 [2006]; seealso People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 607 [2004]; People v Moore, 1 AD3d 421[2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 743 [2004]). Finally, with respect to risk factor 13, concerningdefendant's conduct while confined or supervised, the court's assessment of 10 points issupported by evidence establishing that defendant's record while incarcerated included four tier IIviolations and one tier III violation (see Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at16; see Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124 [2004]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Lunn,Peradotto and Green, JJ.