Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Imbert
People v. Imbert, 48 A.D.3d 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2008)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2008-02-19
- Topic
- general
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs. The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. Since the victim’s grand jury testimony, standing alone, clearly established that defendant used a dangerous instrument during the rape, the court properly assessed points under the corresponding risk factor (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Quintana, 29 AD3d 308 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]). The court also properly assessed points under the risk factor for drug abuse, based on the case summary and presentence reports (see People v Ramos, 41 AD3d 1250 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]), and defendant’s claim of improper double counting is without merit.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Imbert. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. Since the victim’s grand jury testimony, standing alone, clearly established that defendant used a dangerous instrument during the rape, the court properly assessed points under the corresponding risk factor (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Quintana, 29 AD3d 308 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]). The court also properly assessed points under the risk factor for drug abuse, based on the case summary and presentence reports (see People v Ramos, 41 AD3d 1250 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]), and defendant’s claim of improper double counting is without merit. Defendant did not establish any special circumstances warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur&emdash;Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.