People v. Worley

57 A.D.3d 753, 870 N.Y.2d 385
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 753 (People v. Worley) 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. Worley, 57 A.D.3d 753, 870 N.Y.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[754]*754The New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) completed a risk assessment instrument to determine the defendant’s sex offender status for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA). The defendant was assessed a total of 75 points, making him a presumptive level two sex offender. However, the Board recommended an upward departure to a level three designation. After a hearing, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level three sex offender. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, children depicted in pornographic images are “victims” within the meaning of SORA (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416 [2008], affg 47 AD3d 140 [2007]; People v Villane, 49 AD3d 517 [2008]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738 [2007]). Thus, the defendant was properly assessed points for the age of his victims. However, as correctly conceded by the People, the defendant was erroneously assessed points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006]). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the defendant’s presumptive sex offender level and designating him a level three sex offender based upon clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors of a degree not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument and the guidelines (see People v Villane, 49 AD3d 517 [2008]; People v Fiol, 49 AD3d 834 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Hernandez
2020 NY Slip Op 1198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Mota
2018 NY Slip Op 6950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Freeman
2017 NY Slip Op 7760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Garcia
2017 NY Slip Op 6199 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Manougian
132 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Gabriel
129 A.D.3d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Williams
128 A.D.3d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. DeWoody
127 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Cruz
111 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Harding
87 A.D.3d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Stella
71 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Perahia
57 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 753, 870 N.Y.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-worley-nyappdiv-2008.