People v. Mendez

60 A.D.3d 923, 874 N.Y.S.2d 817
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Konviser, J.), dated October 31, 2006, 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.

The defendant’s contention that the assessment of points based upon his use of forcible compulsion constituted improper “double counting” because he was also assessed points based upon the victim’s age is unpreserved for appellate review (cf. People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634, 635 [2007]), and, in any event, is without merit (cf. People v Pietarniello, 53 AD3d 475, 476 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the defen[924]*924dant, the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he accomplished his sex offense through forcible compulsion (see People v Vasquez, 49 AD3d 1282, 1283-1284 [2008]; Penal Law § 130.00 [8] [b]; cf. People v Davis, 21 AD3d 590, 591 [2005]; People v Oglesby, 12 AD3d 857, 859-860 [2004]; People v Sehn, 295 AD2d 749, 749-751 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed those points, and properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Mendez, 60 A.D.3d 923, 874 N.Y.S.2d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

60 A.D.3d 923 (People v. Mendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Farahat
78 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Maxwell
63 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)