People v Williams
2011 NY Slip Op 09297 [90 AD3d 880]
December 20, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 1, 2012


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

[*1]Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.),dated February 10, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated July 13, 2010, madeafter a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated July 13,2010, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated February 10, 2011(see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

"In establishing an offender's appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act(see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of provingthe facts supporting the determination by 'clear and convincing evidence' " (People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820,820 [2010], quoting Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; People v King, 80 AD3d 681[2011]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 30 pointsunder risk factor 1 (see People vKost, 82 AD3d 729 [2011]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelinesand Commentary, at 7-8 [2006]). The presentence report and the case summary prepared by theBoard of Examiners of Sex Offenders, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted"reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at573; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d at 820), and provided a sufficient basis for theassessment of those points (see People vPettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010]).

Accordingly, the County Court correctly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.


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.