People v. Lewis, 8 N.Y.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lewis, 8 N.Y.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Diaz (Neftali) (nyappterm, 2020-10-21)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Diaz (Neftali)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
The CIRT program that defendant completed prior to his sentencing was not a condition of the court's sentence ( see People v Miller , 77 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 701 [2011]; People v Lewis , 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCain (Malik) (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2018 · confidence medium
The court properly assessed 15 points under the lack of supervision risk factor based upon the absence of post-release supervision ( see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]) "even though that circumstance resulted from defendant's having fully served his sentence" ( see People v Johnson , 77 AD3d 548 , 549 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martinez (Stephen)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2018 · confidence medium
Defendant was properly assessed 15 points under the factor for lack of supervised release, even if this was a matter beyond defendant's control ( see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
That assessment is sufficiently supported by reliable hearsay evidence inasmuch as the presentence report (PSR) shows that defendant was convicted in Florida in 2004 for driving under the influence (see Fla Stat § 316.193 [1]), and was shortly thereafter arrested again for the same offense; defendant’s then-13-year-old daughter reported in a supporting deposition that defendant smoked marihuana with her on multiple occasions approximately two months before he sexually abused the daughter’s friend; and the daughter’s mother reported in a statement attached to the PSR that defendant had a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Callendar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
The People demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant’s release *1154 from State custody was not conditioned upon any course of supervision (see People v McNeil, 116 AD3d 1018, 1018 [2014]; People v Rouff, 49 AD3d 517, 517 [2008]; cf. People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this information contained in the presentence investigation report and the case summary was reliable within the meaning of SORA (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 689 [2007]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524, 525 [2005]; see also People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 574 ; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, General Principles If 7 at 5 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this information contained in the presentence investigation report and the case summary was reliable within the meaning of SORA (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 689 [2007]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524, 525 [2005]; see also People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 574 ; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, General Principles If 7 at 5 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Noyes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, the court properly assessed defendant 15 points under risk factor 12 (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Noyes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, the court properly assessed defendant 15 points under risk factor 12 (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Porter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even where, as here, defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, “[o]nce [Supreme] Court determined that the defendant would be released without supervision, its inquiry was ended, and the assessment of 15 points based upon the absence of postrelease supervision was appropriate” (P eople v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Porter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even where, as here, defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, “[o]nce [Supreme] Court determined that the defendant would be released without supervision, its inquiry was ended, and the assessment of 15 points based upon the absence of postrelease supervision was appropriate” (P eople v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Samayoa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 1 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter SORA Guidelines], at 7-8 [2006]; Penal Law § 130.00 [8]; § 130.65 [1]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 704 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 12 (see SORA Guidelines, at 15-16; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571 ; People v Deturris, 90 AD3d 727 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718 [2010]; People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Samayoa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 1 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter SORA Guidelines], at 7-8 [2006]; Penal Law § 130.00 [8]; § 130.65 [1]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 704 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 12 (see SORA Guidelines, at 15-16; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571 ; People v Deturris, 90 AD3d 727 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718 [2010]; People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lisiel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The court properly assessed 15 points under the factor for lack of supervised release (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]), and there is no merit to defendant’s argument that the SORA registration requirements themselves constitute a form of supervision.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pratt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was properly allocated points both for his expulsion from a treatment program (risk factor 12) and his release without supervision (risk factor 14), as there was clear and convincing evidence which merited the imposition of points in both categories (see People v Orengo, 40 AD3d 609, 610 [2007]; see also People v Rouff, 49 AD3d 517 [2008]; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Diaz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The court properly assessed points under the factor for lack of supervised release, even though this was a matter beyond defendant’s control (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The court also properly assessed points under the factor for drug abuse based on defendant’s own admission, coupled with his criminal history (see People v Reyes, 48 AD3d 267 [2008]), and assessed an appropriate number of points under the factor for lack of supervised release, although this was a matter beyond defendant’s control (see People v Lewis, 37 AD 3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tejada
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
People v Reyes, 48 AD3d 267 [2008]), and properly assessed points under the factor for lack of supervised release, even though this was a matter beyond defendant’s control (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reid
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Defendant’s arguments concerning the risk factors of accep tance of responsibility and release without supervision are unavailing (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]), and his arguments concerning a third risk factor are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; Correction Law § 168-n [3] [SORA appeals governed by applicable CPLR provisions]; People v Cassano, 34 AD3d 239 [2006], Iv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bangura
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Moreover, the court properly assessed points under risk factor 14 for lack of supervision, as the People demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant's release from State custody was not conditioned upon any course of supervision ( see Guidelines at [*2]17; People v Oliver , 137 AD3d 1236, 1237 ; People v Callendar , 127 AD3d 1153, 1154 ; see also People v Lewis , 37 AD3d 689, 690 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Lewis
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 20, 2007.
✓ 8 N.Y.3d 814
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 28, 2004, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was convicted on September 28, 2004 of forcible touching under Penal Law § 130.52. Immediately before the imposition of sentence, a hearing was held to determine the defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C). The County Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender based upon clear and convincing evidence consisting of the risk assessment instrument, the case summary, the probation report, the statement of the nine-year-old complainant, and the defendant’s statement to police.

The evidence presented at the hearing as to the defendant’s[*690] history of alcohol abuse, which included the presentence report statement of the victim’s mother, as well as the defendant’s prior conviction for driving while intoxicated, was sufficient to justify the allocation of 15 points in that risk assessment category.

The defendant also was properly assessed risk assessment points for his failure to accept responsibility for the offense. Where, as here, the defendant continues to assert his innocence during the presentence investigation, his allocution to the offense at the time of the plea does not, by itself, establish his acceptance of responsibility. The County Court therefore properly allocated 10 points on that basis (see People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765 [2006]; People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377 [2002]).

Finally, the defendant’s willingness to accept the imposition of postrelease supervision was irrelevant to the objective determination as to whether points should be allocated pursuant to Correction Law § 168-Z based upon the absence of release conditions that will minimize the risk of repeat offenses. Once the County Court determined that the defendant would be released without supervision, its inquiry was ended, and the assessment of 15 points based upon the absence of postrelease supervision was appropriate (see People v Hyson, 27 AD3d 919 [2006]). Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.