| People v Welch |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01932 [126 AD3d 773] |
| March 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Walter Welch, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, AdamM. Koelsch, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun,J.), dated June 16, 2010, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offenderpursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act(see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), a court must "render an ordersetting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on whichthe determinations are based" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Here, theSupreme Court did not adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law inits order. However, since the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findingsof fact and conclusions of law, remittal is not required (see People v Amaya, 121AD3d 874, 874-875 [2014]; People v Fitzpatrick, 120 AD3d 565, 565 [2014]).
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burdenof establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinationssought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see also SexOffender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d112, 117-118 [2011]). 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 other reliable source,including reliable hearsay (seePeople v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]). Here, contrary to the defendant'scontention, he was properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 because he was astranger to the victim. The assessment of these points was supported by clear andconvincing evidence in the record in the form of the complainant's grand jury testimony(see People v Sooknanan,119 AD3d 540, 540 [2014]; People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880, 881 [2010]; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d820, 820 [2010]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, inevent, is without merit.
Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offenderpursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Barros, JJ.,concur.