People v. Strzelecki

125 A.D.3d 737, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2015
Docket2014-04861
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 737 (People v. Strzelecki) 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. Strzelecki, 125 A.D.3d 737, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated March 27, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 4 for continuing course of sexual misconduct (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006]). The County Court was not limited to considering only the crimes of which the defendant was convicted in making its determination (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Wilson, 117 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2014]; People v Feeney, 58 AD3d 614, 615 [2009]; People v LaRock, 45 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2007]). The County Court also correctly assessed 30 points under risk factor 5 because the victim was less than 10 years old at the time of the subject sexual abuse (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11 [2006]), and 20 points under risk factor 6 where, as here, the victim was asleep at the beginning of the sexual assault and, thus, physically helpless (see Penal Law § 130.00 [7]; People v Richardson, 101 AD3d 837, 838 [2012]; People v Duff, 96 AD3d 1031 [2012]; People v Howell, 82 AD3d 857 [2011]). Further, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a downward departure from the presumptive level two designation (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 845, 861 [2014]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 131 [2011]). Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sexually violent offender.

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Parris
2017 NY Slip Op 5252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.3d 737, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-strzelecki-nyappdiv-2015.