People v. Williams (Thomas)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams (Thomas)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 20, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50948(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Williams (Thomas) (People v. Williams (Thomas)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Williams (Thomas), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Thomas Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), entered April 16, 2015, which, after a hearing, adjudicated him a level three sex offender and a predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), entered April 16, 2015, affirmed.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication. Defendant is subject to the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction, which results in a level three adjudication independent of any point assessments (see People v Fair, 129 AD3d 617, lv denied 26 NY3d 910 [2015]; People v Judd, 29 AD3d 431 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]). Although defendant's prior conviction for attempted rape in the first degree occurred in 1983, it involved a twelve-year-old girl (see People v Jamison, 107 AD3d 531 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]). Furthermore, defendant's lengthy criminal record, including three separate felony convictions (some of which involved the use of violence), as well as multiple parole violations, justified the denial of a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see e.g. People McCormack, 129 AD3d 644 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 908 [2015]; People v Rodriguez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03242 [2016]; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD3d 495 [2014]).

While the Criminal Court did not adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n(3), the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and therefore remittal is not required (see People v Amaya, 121 AD3d 874, 875 [2014]; People v Lacewell, 103 AD3d 784, 785 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 856 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 20, 2016

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Thomas Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), entered April 16, 2015, which, after a hearing, adjudicated him a level three sex offender and a predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), entered April 16, 2015, affirmed.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication. Defendant is subject to the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction, which results in a level three adjudication independent of any point assessments (see People v Fair, 129 AD3d 617, lv denied 26 NY3d 910 [2015]; People v Judd, 29 AD3d 431 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]). Although defendant's prior conviction for attempted rape in the first degree occurred in 1983, it involved a twelve-year-old girl (see People v Jamison, 107 AD3d 531 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]). Furthermore, defendant's lengthy criminal record, including three separate felony convictions (some of which involved the use of violence), as well as multiple parole violations, justified the denial of a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see e.g. People McCormack, 129 AD3d 644 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 908 [2015]; People v Rodriguez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03242 [2016]; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD3d 495 [2014]).

While the Criminal Court did not adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n(3), the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and therefore remittal is not required (see People v Amaya, 121 AD3d 874, 875 [2014]; People v Lacewell, 103 AD3d 784, 785 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 856 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 20, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Williams (Thomas), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-thomas-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack