People v. Boyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boyd

121 A.D.3d 658, 993 N.Y.S.2d 184

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket2012-07071

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 658 (People v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Boyd, 121 A.D.3d 658, 993 N.Y.S.2d 184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), dated June 21, 2012, 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.

“Utilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally ‘result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception — not the rule’ ” (People v Walker, 67 AD3d 760, 761 [2009], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). However, “[a] court may exercise its discretion and depart upward from the presumptive risk level where ‘it concludes that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act] guidelines’ ” (People v Richardson, 101 AD3d 837, 838 [2012], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v LaPorte, 119 AD3d 758 [2014]; People v Willette, 115 AD3d 920 [2014]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005]).

Here, the County Court properly granted the People’s motion for an upward departure of the defendant’s risk level designation from a level two to a level three sex offender. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the existence of an aggravating factor that was not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. The proof presented at the hearing established, inter alia, that the defendant was convicted in New Jersey of failing to register as a sex offender, which justified the court’s determination to grant the People’s request for an upward departure (see People v Faver, 113 AD3d 662, 663 [2014]; People v Porter, 74 AD3d 767, 767-768 [2010]; People v Turpeau, 68 AD3d 1083, 1083 *659 [2009]; People v Walker, 67 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; People v Roberts, 54 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2008]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Skelos, J.E, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), dated June 21, 2012, 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.

“Utilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally ‘result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception — not the rule’ ” (People v Walker, 67 AD3d 760, 761 [2009], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). However, “[a] court may exercise its discretion and depart upward from the presumptive risk level where ‘it concludes that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act] guidelines’ ” (People v Richardson, 101 AD3d 837, 838 [2012], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v LaPorte, 119 AD3d 758 [2014]; People v Willette, 115 AD3d 920 [2014]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005]).

Here, the County Court properly granted the People’s motion for an upward departure of the defendant’s risk level designation from a level two to a level three sex offender. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the existence of an aggravating factor that was not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. The proof presented at the hearing established, inter alia, that the defendant was convicted in New Jersey of failing to register as a sex offender, which justified the court’s determination to grant the People’s request for an upward departure (see People v Faver, 113 AD3d 662, 663 [2014]; People v Porter, 74 AD3d 767, 767-768 [2010]; People v Turpeau, 68 AD3d 1083, 1083 *659 [2009]; People v Walker, 67 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]; People v Roberts, 54 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2008]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Skelos, J.E, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 658, 993 N.Y.S.2d 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boyd-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack