People v. Colon

2017 NY Slip Op 199, 146 A.D.3d 822, 43 N.Y.S.3d 921
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 2017·No. 2015-09441·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), dated August 31, 2015, 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.

*823 In establishing an offender’s appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the People “bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Here, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender based on the assessment of 175 points under the risk assessment instrument of the SORA Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416 [2008]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]; People v Poole, 90 AD3d 1550 [2011]). The court also properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for not accepting responsibility, as the defendant’s statements shortly before his release from prison demonstrated that he continued to blame one of his victims, who was eight years old when he began abusing her, for seducing him, and he had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his crime (see People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Teagle, 64 AD3d 549, 550 [2009]).

Even were we to accept the defendant’s argument that points should not have been assessed for risk factor 1, the total score would still place the defendant well within the highest presumptive risk level. Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Colon, 2017 NY Slip Op 199, 146 A.D.3d 822, 43 N.Y.S.3d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

2017 NY Slip Op 199 (People v. Colon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Richardson
209 A.D.3d 1068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Tuitt
2019 NY Slip Op 6106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Royal
2018 NY Slip Op 6775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Roundtree
2018 NY Slip Op 4017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Robinson
2018 NY Slip Op 2986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Colon
29 N.Y.3d 904 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)