Legal Opinion
People v. Rouff
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 4, 2008PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor number 4 (continuing course of sexual misconduct), based on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in several acts of sexual contact with the child victim over a period of approximately 2 years (see People v Mingo, 49 AD3d 148 [2d Dept 2008]; People v Atkinson, 34 AD3d 551 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379, 382-384 [1997]).
The defendant was also properly assessed 15 points under risk factor number 12, based on his failure to accept responsibility for the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. MingoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. MoralesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. TerdemanCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1997
- People v. AtkinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. MabeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. OlogbonjaiyeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. WhyteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. CallendarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. PrattAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.