×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
NY Sex-Offender Properly Classified as Risk Level II Where Risk Assessment Points Place Him in That
NY Sex-Offender Properly Classified as Risk Level II Where Risk Assessment
Points Place Him in That Category
Alan Barnett, a New York state prisoner, was classified as a risk level II
sex offender based on risk assessment points accumulated as a result of
factors relevant to his crime and prison behavior. Barnett appealed,
contending that he was wrongly assessed 10 points for not accepting
responsibility for his crime and 10 points for poor prison behavior, and
thus shouldn't have been classified at level II even though his total
points, without the 20 that he complained of, still placed him in the risk
level II category.
On appeal, the New York Court for the 3rd Department of its Appellate
Division found that because Barnett's risk assessment points placed him in
category II even without the 20 points complained of, his level II
classification was appropriate. Barnett's appeal was thus dismissed. See:
New York v. Barnett, 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484
(N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2006).
Points Place Him in That Category
Alan Barnett, a New York state prisoner, was classified as a risk level II
sex offender based on risk assessment points accumulated as a result of
factors relevant to his crime and prison behavior. Barnett appealed,
contending that he was wrongly assessed 10 points for not accepting
responsibility for his crime and 10 points for poor prison behavior, and
thus shouldn't have been classified at level II even though his total
points, without the 20 that he complained of, still placed him in the risk
level II category.
On appeal, the New York Court for the 3rd Department of its Appellate
Division found that because Barnett's risk assessment points placed him in
category II even without the 20 points complained of, his level II
classification was appropriate. Barnett's appeal was thus dismissed. See:
New York v. Barnett, 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484
(N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
New York v. Barnett
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484 |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
People v. Barnett, 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484 (N.Y.App.Div. 09/28/2006)
[1] NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
[2] No. 98559
[3] 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484
[4] September 28, 2006
[5] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
ALAN G. BARNETT, APPELLANT.
[6] Stephen G. Court, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.
[7] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carpinello, J.
[9] Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
[10] This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
[11] Calendar Date: September 14, 2006
[12] Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.
[13] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
[14] Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered June 7, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
[15] Defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted sodomy in the first degree (294 AD2d 715 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 766 [2002]). In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders evaluated defendant, completed a risk assessment instrument and recommended that he be classified as a risk level II violent sex offender. At a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation and defendant now appeals.
[16] At the hearing, defendant argued, among other things, that the 10 points assessed against him by the Board for failure to accept responsibility and the 10 points assessed for unsatisfactory conduct while confined were improper. After hearing defendant's arguments, County Court noted that even if it agreed with defendant and reduced his score by 20 points, defendant's score would still place in him in the risk level II category. Although County Court provided defendant an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating factors to support a downward modification, defendant did not do so and we find no such evidence in the record. Consequently, as the case summary and the presentence investigation report provide clear and convincing evidence to support the risk level classification, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in classifying defendant as a risk level II sex offender (see People v Dickison, 24 AD3d 980, 981 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]; People v Hunt, 17 AD3d 713, 714 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 763 [2005]).
[17] Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.
[18] ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
[1] NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
[2] No. 98559
[3] 32 A.D.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 484
[4] September 28, 2006
[5] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
ALAN G. BARNETT, APPELLANT.
[6] Stephen G. Court, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.
[7] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carpinello, J.
[9] Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
[10] This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
[11] Calendar Date: September 14, 2006
[12] Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.
[13] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
[14] Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered June 7, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
[15] Defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted sodomy in the first degree (294 AD2d 715 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 766 [2002]). In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders evaluated defendant, completed a risk assessment instrument and recommended that he be classified as a risk level II violent sex offender. At a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation and defendant now appeals.
[16] At the hearing, defendant argued, among other things, that the 10 points assessed against him by the Board for failure to accept responsibility and the 10 points assessed for unsatisfactory conduct while confined were improper. After hearing defendant's arguments, County Court noted that even if it agreed with defendant and reduced his score by 20 points, defendant's score would still place in him in the risk level II category. Although County Court provided defendant an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating factors to support a downward modification, defendant did not do so and we find no such evidence in the record. Consequently, as the case summary and the presentence investigation report provide clear and convincing evidence to support the risk level classification, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in classifying defendant as a risk level II sex offender (see People v Dickison, 24 AD3d 980, 981 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]; People v Hunt, 17 AD3d 713, 714 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 763 [2005]).
[17] Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.
[18] ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.