People v. Mosley

106 A.D.3d 1067, 965 N.Y.S.2d 632
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 106 A.D.3d 1067 (People v. Mosley) 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. Mosley, 106 A.D.3d 1067, 965 N.Y.S.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[1068]*1068Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), dated November 30, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), erroneously assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. During his interview with the Probation Department, the defendant claimed he was innocent and had pleaded guilty only for the sake of expediency because he had been in jail too long. Although, two weeks later, the defendant formally admitted his guilt in response to questioning by the Supreme Court at the sentencing proceeding, the defendant’s contradictory statements, considered together, do not reflect a genuine acceptance of responsibility as required by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]; People v Farrice, 100 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v Perry, 85 AD3d 890 [2011]; People v Vega, 79 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]; People v Ferrer, 69 AD3d 513, 515 [2010]).

Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People demonstrated, through “clear and convincing evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), that he failed to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12, and properly designated the defendant a level three sexually violent offender. Angiolillo, J.P, Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Williams
172 N.Y.S.3d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Rodas
2020 NY Slip Op 07612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Guadeloupe
2019 NY Slip Op 4736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Bower
2018 NY Slip Op 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Benitez
140 A.D.3d 1140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Hatcher
132 A.D.3d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
PeoplevMunafo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Munafo
119 A.D.3d 1102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Reede
113 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 A.D.3d 1067, 965 N.Y.S.2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mosley-nyappdiv-2013.