People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dixon

125 A.D.3d 622, 999 N.Y.S.2d 753

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2015

Docket2014-06029

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 622 (People v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 125 A.D.3d 622, 999 N.Y.S.2d 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 20, 2014, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the County Court properly assessed 10 points against him under risk factor 12 for failing to accept responsibility. The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant minimized his conduct and thus did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level three sex offender.

Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Miller 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, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 20, 2014, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the County Court properly assessed 10 points against him under risk factor 12 for failing to accept responsibility. The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant minimized his conduct and thus did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level three sex offender.

Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 622, 999 N.Y.S.2d 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dixon-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack