People v. PerezPeople v. Perez
The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. The court properly assessed 20 points for sexual misconduct while confined, based on defendant‘s prison disciplinary record.
Defendant argues that since a disciplinary disposition may be based on a standard of substantial evidence, it does not satisfy
Defendant also argues that since his consensual sexual activity would have been lawful, as well as being constitutionally protected (see Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558 [2003]), had it not occurred in a prison setting, it did not indicate a potential for unlawful sexual activity. However, the conduct at issue undisputedly violated prison rules, and “defendant‘s inability to refrain from forbidden sexual conduct . . . was relevant to his potential for sexual recidivism” (People v Salley, 67 AD3d 525, 526 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 703 [2010]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.