People v. Jamison

Opinion

People v Jamison

2026 NY Slip Op 04965

August 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Willie Jamison, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 12, 2026

2024-08644

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (David L. Glovin and Francine R. Michel of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), dated August 7, 2024, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, among other crimes. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant a total of 100 points on the risk assessment instrument and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.

The defendant's contention that the matter should be remitted to determine whether he should be granted a downward departure from his presumptive risk level is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to request a downward departure at the SORA hearing (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Dowd, 248 AD3d 950, 952; People v Cortez, 232 AD3d 675, 676). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Dowd, 248 AD3d at 952).

Furthermore, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a downward departure. The record demonstrates that such an argument would have had little or no chance of success, and there is no reasonable probability that had defense counsel requested a downward departure, the result of the proceeding would have been different (see People v Ivey, 223 AD3d 686, 687-688; People v Mizhquiri-Duarte, 211 AD3d 977, 978).

LASALLE, P.J., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court