From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 12, 2015
131 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2013-02046

08-12-2015

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Calvin BROWN, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), dated January 14, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex 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 People proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was properly assessed points under risk factor 6, based on the victim's mental disability (see People v. Leeks, 43 A.D.3d 1251, 842 N.Y.S.2d 613 ; cf. People v. Green, 104 A.D.3d 1222, 960 N.Y.S.2d 582 ). In addition, the defendant's contention that the assessment of points under risk factors 5 (age of victim) and 6 constituted improper double counting is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Jones, 101 A.D.3d 836, 954 N.Y.S.2d 918 ; People v. Fredlund, 38 A.D.3d 636, 832 N.Y.S.2d 592 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Caban, 61 A.D.3d 834, 835, 877 N.Y.S.2d 403 ). The Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factor 12 based upon the defendant's removal from treatment programs for disciplinary reasons while incarcerated (see People v. DeCastro, 101 A.D.3d 693, 954 N.Y.S.2d 496 ; People v. Peana, 68 A.D.3d 737, 888 N.Y.S.2d 915 ; People v. Orengo, 40 A.D.3d 609, 610, 836 N.Y.S.2d 202 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v. Grubbs, 107 A.D.3d 771, 967 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; People v. Lacewell, 103 A.D.3d 784, 962 N.Y.S.2d 193 ).

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 12, 2015
131 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Calvin BROWN, appellant.

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

Date published: Aug 12, 2015

Citations

131 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
14 N.Y.S.3d 694
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 6499

Citing Cases

People v. Hyams

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.The defendant's sole contention on appeal,…

People v. Hyams

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendant's sole contention on…