From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Beers

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 21, 2015
124 A.D.3d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

01-21-2015

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Anthony BEERS, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Steven J. Miraglia of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Adam M. Koelsch of counsel; Jason Kosek on the brief), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Steven J. Miraglia of counsel), for appellant.Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Adam M. Koelsch of counsel; Jason Kosek on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Riviezzo, J.), dated June 18, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three 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, he was properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 based on his prior criminal history (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 13 [2006]; People v. Franco, 106 A.D.3d 417, 417, 963 N.Y.S.2d 865 ; People v. Wood, 60 A.D.3d 1350, 1350, 875 N.Y.S.2d 686 ). Moreover, the defendant was also properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 10 for the recency of his prior offense (see People v. Wood, 60 A.D.3d at 1350, 875 N.Y.S.2d 686 ).

Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the assessment of 15 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility, and 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, did not amount to impermissible double counting (see People v. Johnson, 118 A.D.3d 684, 685, 986 N.Y.S.2d 860 ; People v. Ologbonjaiye, 109 A.D.3d 804, 805, 971 N.Y.S.2d 126 ).

The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure (see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sexually violent offender.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Beers

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 21, 2015
124 A.D.3d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Beers

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Anthony BEERS, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 21, 2015

Citations

124 A.D.3d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
124 A.D.3d 741
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 510

Citing Cases

People v. Lathan

A defendant seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of “(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an…

People v. Green

The instant offense, sexual abuse in the first degree, was a continuing course of sexual misconduct that…