People v. Lesta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lesta

121 A.D.3d 494, 994 N.Y.S.2d 114

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2014

Docket570935/10 13206 13205

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 494 (People v. Lesta) 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. Lesta, 121 A.D.3d 494, 994 N.Y.S.2d 114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about February 1, 2013, which affirmed an order of the Criminal Court, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2010, adjudicating defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Criminal Court properly assessed 15 points under the factor for drug abuse, based on defendant’s long history of drug-related convictions (see People v Valentin, 57 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 705 [2009]), and his admissions to the Department of Probation and to an evaluating psychologist. Criminal Court also properly assessed 10 points for the use of forcible compulsion, based on the allegations contained in the complaint (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572 [2009]), and undisputed in defendant’s own plea allocution. Under the circumstances, the fact that the case was disposed of by way of a plea to sexual misconduct does not undermine the inference of forcible compulsion for purposes of this assessment of points.

Criminal Court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure to level one (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 856-857 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Clark, JJ.

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

Orders of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about February 1, 2013, which affirmed an order of the Criminal Court, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2010, adjudicating defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Criminal Court properly assessed 15 points under the factor for drug abuse, based on defendant’s long history of drug-related convictions (see People v Valentin, 57 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 705 [2009]), and his admissions to the Department of Probation and to an evaluating psychologist. Criminal Court also properly assessed 10 points for the use of forcible compulsion, based on the allegations contained in the complaint (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572 [2009]), and undisputed in defendant’s own plea allocution. Under the circumstances, the fact that the case was disposed of by way of a plea to sexual misconduct does not undermine the inference of forcible compulsion for purposes of this assessment of points.

Criminal Court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure to level one (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 856-857 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 494, 994 N.Y.S.2d 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lesta-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack