Opinion
949 KA 18–01777
10-04-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher J. WEBER, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( Correction Law § 168 et seq. ), defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing 10 points for use of forcible compulsion under risk factor 1. As the People correctly concede, the court erred in that assessment inasmuch as defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the first degree under subdivision (3) of Penal Law § 130.50, which does not require evidence of forcible compulsion (cf. People v. Law , 94 A.D.3d 1561, 1563, 943 N.Y.S.2d 814 [4th Dept. 2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 809, 2012 WL 3743354 [2012] ), and there was no other evidence in the record establishing that defendant used forcible compulsion in committing the crime. When those 10 points are subtracted, defendant's total score makes him a presumptive level two risk.
Nevertheless, we note that an upward departure from the presumptive level may be warranted, i.e., there may be evidence of "an aggravating ... factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] ). Here, however, "because defendant was determined to be a level three sex offender, County Court had no reason to consider whether clear and convincing evidence exists to warrant such a departure" ( People v. Swain , 46 A.D.3d 1157, 1159, 848 N.Y.S.2d 726 [3d Dept. 2007] ; see People v. Stewart , 61 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 876 N.Y.S.2d 208 [3d Dept. 2009] ; see also People v. Felice , 100 A.D.3d 609, 610, 953 N.Y.S.2d 295 [2d Dept. 2012] ). Consequently, under the circumstances presented, we deem it appropriate to "remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure from defendant's presumptive risk level is warranted" ( People v. Brown , 148 A.D.3d 1705, 1707, 50 N.Y.S.3d 671 [4th Dept. 2017] ; see Stewart , 61 A.D.3d at 1061, 876 N.Y.S.2d 208 ; see also People v. Price , 31 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 817 N.Y.S.2d 802 [4th Dept. 2006] ).