Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a lower court's order designating the defendant as a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Although the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof when assessing points under risk factor 12, the appellate court independently found that clear and convincing evidence supported the assessment based on the defendant's minimization of culpability. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's order without costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court applied the correct clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence standard in assessing points under risk factor 12 for the defendant’s failure to accept responsibility.
- Whether the assessment of ten points under risk factor 12 was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Holdings
- The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court’s assessment of ten points under risk factor 12 was supported by clear and convincing evidence and therefore affirmed the order.
Key quotations
“In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence” (at 1)
“In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” (at 1)
Factual background
The People designated Noel Santiago a level three sex offender under SORA, assigning him 10 points for risk factor 12 (failure to accept responsibility) based on his statements and treatment program participation. Santiago challenged the assessment, arguing the court applied the wrong standard of proof.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appealed the assessment of points under risk factor 12. The Appellate Division reviewed the record and affirmed the order.