People v. Noeker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Noeker

2017 NY Slip Op 8703, 156 A.D.3d 733, 64 N.Y.S.3d 893, 2017 WL 6347059

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2017

Docket2016-09653

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8703 (People v. Noeker) 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. Noeker, 2017 NY Slip Op 8703, 156 A.D.3d 733, 64 N.Y.S.3d 893, 2017 WL 6347059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated August 10, 2016, 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 challenges his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) following his conviction upon a plea of guilty to 8 counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child in violation of Penal Law § 263.15 and 21 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child in violation of Penal Law § 263.16.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this issue at the SORA hearing (see People v Destio, 145 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2016]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 845 [2014]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]). Further, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 854; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 418-420 [2008]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]).

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not request a downward departure from his presumptive designation as a level two sex offender during the SORA hearing (see People v Sweat, 147 AD3d 802, 802 [2017]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see id.).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated August 10, 2016, 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 challenges his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) following his conviction upon a plea of guilty to 8 counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child in violation of Penal Law § 263.15 and 21 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child in violation of Penal Law § 263.16.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this issue at the SORA hearing (see People v Destio, 145 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2016]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 845 [2014]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]). Further, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 854; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 418-420 [2008]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]).

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not request a downward departure from his presumptive designation as a level two sex offender during the SORA hearing (see People v Sweat, 147 AD3d 802, 802 [2017]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see id.).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8703, 156 A.D.3d 733, 64 N.Y.S.3d 893, 2017 WL 6347059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-noeker-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack