People v. Williams

Full title: PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Kevin WILLIAMS, appellant.

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

Date published: Nov 7, 2012

100 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

953 N.Y.S.2d 298

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7283

Opinion

2012-11-7

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Kevin WILLIAMS, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel; Molly Talbert on the brief), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.

ANITA R. FLORIO

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel; Molly Talbert on the brief), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), dated December 16, 2010, 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.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the assessment of 15 points under risk factor 11 (“Drug or Alcohol Abuse–History of Abuse”), was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, based upon the case summary and probation report relied upon by the hearing court ( see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 571, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983;People v. Lewis, 37 A.D.3d 689, 830 N.Y.S.2d 312), the defendant had a history of substance abuse, and further, the defendant had admitted that his marijuana use may have caused him to commit one of the underlying offenses ( see People v. Robinson, 55 A.D.3d 708, 866 N.Y.S.2d 683). Additionally, the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 (“Conduct while confined/supervised-Unsatisfactory”) was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The defendant's unsatisfactory conduct during his incarceration was established by the case summary, which revealed that he recently committed a Tier III disciplinary violation ( see People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820, 821, 893 N.Y.S.2d 585). Thus, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sexually violent offender.