People v. Quinn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s contentions that the procedures employed at his Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) risk level assessment hearing violated due process are without merit.
The County Court’s designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The County Court properly assessed the defendant 10 points under risk factor 8 because he was less than 20 years old at the time of his first act of sexual misconduct. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. CrandallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. BowlesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. ThompsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. RobinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. OlogbonjaiyeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. DililloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. MontanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. Guallpa-LemaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- People v. ShkreliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.