| People v Thompson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07164 [111 AD3d 613] |
| November 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Chandler Thompson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County(Forman, J.), dated October 4, 2011, which, upon a decision made after a hearing,designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act(see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), the People bear the burden ofestablishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinationssought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see also Sex OffenderRegistration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Finizio, 100 AD3d977, 977 [2012]). "In assessing points, evidence may be derived from thedefendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by thesupervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summariesprepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any otherreliable source, including reliable hearsay" (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; seeSex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5[2006]; see also People vMingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571-572 [2009]).
The only points that the defendant unsuccessfully challenged before the CountyCourt, and the only points he challenges on appeal, are the 25 points assessed under riskfactor two, based on sexual intercourse with the victim, and the 20 points assessed underrisk factor four, based on a continuing course of sexual misconduct. Contrary to thedefendant's contentions, the People established the facts supporting the assessment ofthese points by clear and convincing evidence. The information contained in thepresentence investigation report prepared by the Michigan Department of CorrectionsBureau of Probation and the case summary, which included statements made by thevictim, demonstrated that the defendant engaged in at least two acts of sexual contactwith the victim and that one of those incidents included an act of sexual intercourse.Furthermore, the information in the presentence investigation report and the casesummary derived from the victim's medical reports established that the physical conditionof the victim at the time she was examined demonstrated that the acts were separated bymore than 24 hours. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this information contained inthe presentence investigation report and the case summary was reliable within themeaning of SORA (see People vLewis, 37 AD3d 689, 689 [2007]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524, 525 [2005]; see alsoPeople v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 574; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk AssessmentGuidelines and Commentary, General Principles ¶ 7 at 5 [2006]). Based on theforegoing, the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendantengaged in [*2]a continuing course of sexual misconductthat included sexual intercourse, and that the assessment of 25 points under risk factortwo and 20 points under risk factor four was appropriate (see Sex OffenderRegistration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 9-10 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, based on the total of 120 points assessed, the County Court properlydesignated the defendant a level three sex offender. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Austin andMiller, JJ., concur.