People v. Morales

2021 NY Slip Op 01361, 139 N.Y.S.3d 824, 192 A.D.3d 460
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Morales. Read the opinion of the Court — 189 A.D.3d 1464
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 2021·No. Ind No. 99085/16 Appeal No. 13288 Case No. 2018-3898·Published

Opinion

People v Morales (2021 NY Slip Op 01361)
People v Morales
2021 NY Slip Op 01361
Decided on March 09, 2021
Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: March 09, 2021
Before: Gische, J.P., Singh, Moulton, González, JJ.

Ind No. 99085/16 Appeal No. 13288 Case No. 2018-3898

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Baudillo Morales Also Known as Baudilo Morales, Defendant-Appellant.


Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Julia L. Chariott of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supported the court's assessment of 15 points under the risk factor for a history of drug or alcohol abuse (see generally People v Howard, 27 NY3d 337, 341 [2016]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record does not establish a prolonged period of abstinence, or abstinence from drugs at the time of the offense.

Regardless of whether defendant's correct point score is 105, as found by the court, or 90, as he contends, he remains a level two offender, and we find no basis for a downward departure (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There was no overassessment of defendant's risk regarding his sexual relationship with an underage victim, given the circumstances surrounding the offense and the approximately 16-year age disparity between defendant and the 15-year-old victim (see e.g. People v Catalano, 178 AD3d 1460 [4th Dept 2019] lv denied 35 NY3d 906 [2020]). We also find nothing about defendant's risk assessment in Massachusetts, where he was also found to be at a moderate risk for reoffending, that would support a downward departure.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 9, 2021



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

People v. Morales, 2021 NY Slip Op 01361, 139 N.Y.S.3d 824, 192 A.D.3d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

2021 NY Slip Op 01361 (People v. Morales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The People v. Quanaparker Howard
52 N.E.3d 1158 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
People v. Gillotti
18 N.E.3d 701 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)