People v. Lozano
This text of 221 A.D.3d 919 (People v. Lozano) 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.
Opinion
| People v Lozano |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 06065 |
| Decided on November 22, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 22, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
2019-10947
v
Jamie Lozano, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Boksenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Christopher Blira-Koessler of counsel; Alexander Vidal on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), dated August 13, 2019, 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 his plea of guilty, of promoting a sexual performance by a child (two counts) (Penal Law § 263.15). Following a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 105 points, including 10 points for not accepting responsibility. The court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court should not have assessed points against him for not accepting responsibility.
The issue the defendant raises is academic under these circumstances since deducting those points from the total points assessed against the defendant under factors not contested by him would not alter his presumptive risk level (see People v Johnson, 168 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111; People v Rosario, 164 AD3d 625).
DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, CHRISTOPHER and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
221 A.D.3d 919, 198 N.Y.S.3d 602, 2023 NY Slip Op 06065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lozano-nyappdiv-2023.