People v. Rought

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rought

2017 NY Slip Op 8058, 155 A.D.3d 1261, 63 N.Y.S.3d 764

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2017

Docket520998

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8058 (People v. Rought) 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. Rought, 2017 NY Slip Op 8058, 155 A.D.3d 1261, 63 N.Y.S.3d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Rumsey, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), entered March 27, 2015, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the second degree, two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to eight years in prison, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The convictions stemmed from him having sexual intercourse on several occasions during 2006 and 2007 with two girls under the age of 12. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders submitted a risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender (150 points) in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). Following a hearing, County Court reduced defendant’s total risk factor score to 140 points, still within the presumptive risk level three range, and classified him as a sexually violent offender. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that he was erroneously assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 (the number and nature of prior crimes) for the same conduct for which he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 (age at first sex crime). We disagree. This Court has previously held that “the age of offenders at the time of their first sex crime and whether they have a criminal history that includes . . . sex offenses are not duplicative factors resulting in the assessment of points for the same conduct, but, rather, are cumulative predictors of the likelihood of reoffense” (People v Barney, 126 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]; accord People v Miller, 149 AD3d 1279, 1281 [2017]). Accordingly, County Court properly assessed points under risk factors 8 and 9 for the same underlying offense.

Egan Jr., J.P., Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Rumsey, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), entered March 27, 2015, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the second degree, two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to eight years in prison, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The convictions stemmed from him having sexual intercourse on several occasions during 2006 and 2007 with two girls under the age of 12. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders submitted a risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender (150 points) in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). Following a hearing, County Court reduced defendant’s total risk factor score to 140 points, still within the presumptive risk level three range, and classified him as a sexually violent offender. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that he was erroneously assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 (the number and nature of prior crimes) for the same conduct for which he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 (age at first sex crime). We disagree. This Court has previously held that “the age of offenders at the time of their first sex crime and whether they have a criminal history that includes . . . sex offenses are not duplicative factors resulting in the assessment of points for the same conduct, but, rather, are cumulative predictors of the likelihood of reoffense” (People v Barney, 126 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]; accord People v Miller, 149 AD3d 1279, 1281 [2017]). Accordingly, County Court properly assessed points under risk factors 8 and 9 for the same underlying offense.

Egan Jr., J.P., Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8058, 155 A.D.3d 1261, 63 N.Y.S.3d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rought-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack