People v. Harding
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed him 30 points under risk factor 3 (three or more victims), since children portrayed in child pornography are victims (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 419-420 [2008]; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d 906 [2011]). Further, in determining that there were at least three victims, the County Court properly relied upon the descriptions of the child pornography that the defendant was convicted of possessing that were contained in a report prepared by his federal probation officer (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. MingoNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- People v. JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. PettigrewNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- People v. BretanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. WorleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. DeDonaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. CarrollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. CorrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- People v. LombardiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.