People v Christie

2012 NY Slip Op 02735 [94 AD3d 1263]

April 12, 2012

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2012

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

—[*1]Eugene P. Grimmick, Troy, for appellant.

Richard J. McNally Jr., District Attorney, Troy (Rita A. Romani of counsel), forrespondent.

Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Jacon, J.), enteredMarch 24, 2011, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender and a sexuallyviolent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In October 1994, defendant was convicted of multiple crimes involving sexual contact withan eight-year-old boy and was thereafter sentenced to a term of 81/3 to 25 years inprison. In anticipation of defendant's expected release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offendersprepared a risk assessment instrument presumptively classifying him as a risk level one sexoffender, but recommended an upward departure to a level two. At a subsequent hearing, thePeople advocated for assessing defendant 20 additional points for engaging in a continuingcourse of sexual conduct toward the victim. County Court agreed, assessed defendant theadditional points and, in accord with the presumptive classification, classified defendant as a risklevel two sexually violent offender. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. The burden rests with the People to produce clear and convincing evidence toestablish the proper risk classification (see People v Kruger, 88 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 806 [2012]; Peoplev Rhodehouse, 88 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2011]). The People did so here with theintroduction of a statement by the victim that detailed that defendant had [*2]engaged in sexual contact with him on at least five differentoccasions while defendant was babysitting him. This account was corroborated by defendant'sown voluntary statement to police, in which he recounted that the sexual contact had occurredtwice at his house and at least twice at the victim's house. Inasmuch as County Court mayconsider reliable hearsay evidence, such as a victim's statement and admissions by the defendant,we find that its determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see People v Burch, 90 AD3d1429, 1430-1431 [2011]; People vGood, 88 AD3d 1037, 1037 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 802 [2011]; People v Gleason, 85 AD3d 1508[2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 711 [2011]; see generally Sex Offender RegistrationAct: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006]). Defendant's remaining contentionshave been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order isaffirmed, without costs.