Opinion
2011-12-13
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Steven DETURRIS, appellant.
Brill Legal Group, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Peter E. Brill of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.
Brill Legal Group, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Peter E. Brill of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn J.), dated January 10, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The County Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law article 6–C; People v. Dong V. Dao, 9 A.D.3d 401, 401–402, 779 N.Y.S.2d 914). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 15 points, under risk factor 11, for a history of drug abuse ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006 ed.]; People v. Guitard, 57 A.D.3d 751, 752, 871 N.Y.S.2d 205). The facts as contained in the presentence report, which was offered by the People at the SORA hearing, provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those 15 points ( see People v. Smith, 78 A.D.3d 917, 918, 911 N.Y.S.2d 451; see also People v. Guitard, 57 A.D.3d 751, 871 N.Y.S.2d 205; cf. People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585). In addition, this same evidence, along with the Risk Assessment Instrument, as well as the defendant's own testimony at the SORA hearing, demonstrated that the defendant had not accepted responsibility for his conduct ( see People v. Garcia, 56 A.D.3d 539, 866 N.Y.S.2d 874; People v. Alvarez, 49 A.D.3d 704, 852 N.Y.S.2d 845; People v. Lawless, 44 A.D.3d 738, 842 N.Y.S.2d 729). Therefore, the defendant *337 was also properly assessed 10 points under Risk Assessment Instrument risk factor 12, “Acceptance of Responsibility.”
Consequently, the determination of the County Court to uphold the 75 points which the Board ascribed to the defendant in the Risk Assessment Instrument, and to designate the defendant a level two offender, should not be disturbed ( see People v. Pardo, 50 A.D.3d 992, 854 N.Y.S.2d 899).