EFTA00205130.pdf

呂剑NN 仙栅①尸尸厂 q' m ’嘞 仂毛①①口＜、 〖。仂犬。老挥忡塌 》n 。仂＂P 巴uq 仁们I 仂剑H 仙仰吕， qq . ③口中H 『丁① m①。℃尸① 。『 什了① 仂什仰g 。－ z①笔 吣。鬥犬嘞 HjQ ' w 8 闐④凡H 。 为①仂℃。口Q ①j 什 嘞 I仙囵岂口们什－ 8 揉＂①＜ 閨·閂℃仂什巴口、 。①『①？Q 剑口什－游℃℃①：仙口＂. 犬 一 咧 酉 g q 伊 国尸尸＝ 「「巾塌z ①笔 吣。＂犬 艺仙＜ m． 「 ① 饰 片 。 菩 g 。 怖 。。仁j 们①七、 －。咧 仙℃℃①：仰＃. O< g 仂 m ' ＜ 仰 ＝ 8 、 q 咧 ‘ 、 。 ＝ 什 吕 ~ 游＂什。＂口①＜、z ①毛 吣。鬥片＾。①5 。 ＂ 吕 r 。栅仂① 。－ 。。仁口们①尸』塌 『。栲 ＂①仂℃。jq ①异． 。栲q 巾栲嘞 仂＝℃鴆①吕巾 0 2 ＂什嘞z ①笔 吣。＂犬 。。＝＝竹＜＾为仁吕 晋 n 吞。HN , q’』嘞 ①＝什巾栲①Q 吕 。 栲 ~寸。仁什 q g ＝仙鴆吣 H动嘞 閥 8 厂 老己n万 仰Qu =Q 冒倒什①Q q①幂匀q 仙＝什 剑 一①＜①尸 什＝栲巾① 仂①渊 。揉①＝Q ①咧 ℃仁＂仂仁仙口＂ 竹。 ＂‘① 切巾x 。揉①口Q ①＂ 为 ① 8 仂什鬥山g 。’ >n 竹 ＾。。昼①ng 。 口 「仰老 仰＂什 ③ I O』嘞 仁口山吕当。仁仂尸＜ 仙 揉 ＃ 吕 ① Q 、 老 摔 5 。＝什 n。仂什仂． 2 ①仙栲 仙口Q 。。口＜旨n 写 圜 ① ＆ Q ①’。巾、 一口2 仁Q 写 圜 ＂①尸冒5 尸 ① 了①倒＂们仰＜ ＾仂①⑦ 怕⑦。℃幂 ＜鸶H 凸啕。嘞 尸 闐 z吣wQ 篙 w 塌 驾 一 「閥8 ④ 」」 仂仁℃℃。鴆什①Q 竹丁① 仙仂仂①仂们尽①口＂ 。『 ℃吕匀什仂 饰。栲 昌 仂 石 冒 n 什。＂仂 仂 仁 揉 8 ①’什 一。鬥 仰 H①＜①尸 ＂‘鴆①① 们①渊 吕饰①口Q ①鴆 倒Q 」 仁 昌 8 g 。 廿 ＾。。＂栲①n 什 。口 「仙笔 吻 H峦曲－口「w 一 －· H匀 ＂丁① 。 栲。＝吕仂什仰’。①们 。 『 什了 仂 。仙仂巾、 什5 ① 。。仁＂什 ℃咧。℃①＂尸＜ 鴆①~①Q 。j 了 吕 己 ＜ 咧 ① ： 吕 H ① ℃咧。。－ 。呻 。栲 吕一 山尸 n。＝q =n 什 『。栲 雹5 n了 q①一 jq 仙，竹 毛仙们 j① 什了①咧 一口Q 。什①Q 口。栲 n。＝< n竹①q . 『5 ① 们①揣 。揉①口Q ①鴆 倒Q 」仁Q 冒 胃 8 ： 山＂冒巾仂 。＝什 。 一 Q①『①＝Q 仙口＂’仂 仂①揣 。『饰①口仂①仂 一 匀 呵 。鬥 Q仙 · 闩5 ① ①＜ Q①口。① 5①－。忖巾 什丁① 锈 O-～ 漳 ‘①仙咧吕囵 。。仁鴆什 巾们竹仙5 尸＝，①Q 竹，山＂ 8 幂 ＝ Q 仙口什 。。吕－巨竹＂①Q H仂 尽 仁 尸 g 2 ① 。揉①j 们①仂 仙 圜 g 口仂什 仙 仂①吕①仂 。饰 ＝=Q ①栲仙圜① 8 " ． 闩z 8 栲尸们 毛①＂① 5咧。仁囵’什 什。 q①幂匀q 仙＝竹、加 ，。吕① 什。 ℃ g < q① “当倒仂们仰囵①仂嘞嘞 什＝仙什 尸①Q 什。 ＜①鴆＜ 仂①吕。＝们 仂①兴 。吕吕①仂． 『‘①仂① 岔 n 什 仂 毛①＂① ①仂什仰5 ~们了①q 5＜ 栲 巾 ： 耆 尸 ① ~①仙＂仂仙＜』 吕 。 尸 仁 g 口由 什‘① ℃忖。5 仙5H 巾 n仙仁仂① 仙 揉 吕 仙 ＜ 挥 ℃鴆①℃仙＂①Q 寸＜ 啕H 。 吕 Q剑 尸仙毛①昌。＂n ①三①匀什 仙仁＂‘。吕g ① 仂 仙摔①咧 什了①冒 写 ＜ ① 们 g 峪 仰 g 。 ？ 仰’q 什‘① m。山栲Q 。 一 国x 倒吕写①鴆仂 。 一 仂①渊 O揉①＝Q ①咧仂， n剑仂① 仂口吕吕仰鬥＜ ＾仂峦① 逮阵凸哟。嘞 黠 z吣wQ 仰 ＂ 骂闐－驾w 塌 驾 鬯 · 闩了① ℃＂。5 剑5 幂 。仰仁仂巾 ％ 控 Q 仰 ＜ 挥 毛山仂 ①x ＂咧①吕①尸＜ Q① g 口 ① Q · H＂ 仂①竹 『。＂什， 竹5 ① 加毛。g , 竹仙℃①－鴆①。。栲Q①q 仂什仙什①三①j 什 仂 。饰 ＂5 ① ＆ n g 吕仂． 哼~① ＜ 冒 g 吕加』 Q①什仙一 ①q 仙。n 。＝＝什仂 。 一 Q①饰①口Q 山j 什嘞仂 n＂ 吕①仂 。。咧＂。寸。咧仰什①Q ①仙。， 。什5 ①栲塌 剑jQ 笔①鬥① 仙 H仂。 8 鬥＂。5 。鬥仙什①q 5＜ 。＂丁①＂ ① ＆ Q ①口n ① 、 EFTA00205130 including declarations against penal interest made by defendant's accomplice. In 2006, the Florida prosecutor obtained an indictment charging defendant with solicitation of prostitution. In 2008, the Florida prosecutor filed an information, this time charging procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. A few days after the information, defendant pleaded guilty to both accusatory instruments. Both instruments involved the same victim, who was only one of defendant's many victims. The Board and the hearing court are not limited to the underlying crime in determining an offender's risk level (see People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548, 549-550 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]). "[T]he fact that an offender was not indicted for an offense may be strong evidence that the offense did not occur" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, General Principles 1 7, at 5 [2006]). However, here the strong evidence that the offenses against the other victims did occur outweighs any inferences to be drawn from the manner in which this case was prosecuted in Florida. The reasons for the actions taken by the Florida authorities remain unclear on this record. The record before us is insufficient to establish that those authorities reasonably believed the charges involving the other victims were unprovable. The record permits competing inferences. In any event, the hearing court was entitled to rely on the reliably proven facts themselves, and was not necessarily bound by any exercises of prosecutorial discretion. We reject defendant's argument that the People should be estopped from taking a different position on appeal from the position they took before the hearing court. At the hearing, the People mistakenly conceded that the conduct for which defendant was not indicted should not be considered, and that defendant should be adjudicated a level one offender. These were legal arguments that the court rejected, and it is the court's determination that we review on this appeal. Furthermore, when the court announced that it was rejecting the People's position and would consider the offenses against additional victims, defendant did not request any opportunity to challenge the reliability of the additional charges. Accordingly, defendant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to litigate the issue (see e.g. People v Strong, 276 AD2d 271 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 807 [2001]). Defendant's remaining claims are improperly raised for EFTA00205131 the first time on appeal (see People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801 [2008]), and are unavailing in any event. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2011 CLERK EFTA00205132