From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cruz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 13, 2013
111 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-13

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Alexis M. CRUZ, appellant.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.



Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated July 5, 2012, as, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was designated a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C, upon the County Court's exercise of discretion to upwardly depart from the defendant's presumptive risk level. An upward departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted “where ‘there exists an aggravating ... factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account’ ” by the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) Guidelines ( People v. Bowens, 55 A.D.3d 809, 810, 866 N.Y.S.2d 291, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 120, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85;People v. White, 25 A.D.3d 677, 811 N.Y.S.2d 699;People v. Dexter, 21 A.D.3d 403, 404, 799 N.Y.S.2d 807;People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545, 778 N.Y.S.2d 704). “[T]he cited aggravating factor must tend to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community,” and “the People must prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence” ( People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 123, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85;see People v. Campbell, 98 A.D.3d 5, 13, 946 N.Y.S.2d 587).

Here, the People presented clear and convincing evidence of the existence of aggravating factors not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines, which established a higher likelihood of reoffense and danger to the community. Specifically, the People proffered the defendant's admission to having sexually abused the victim on one prior occasion ( see People v. Geier, 56 A.D.3d 539, 867 N.Y.S.2d 185;People v. Hammonds, 27 A.D.3d 441, 442, 811 N.Y.S.2d 102), as well as the public and conspicuous nature of the offense, which reflected the defendant's “lack of inhibition and insight into and concern for the inappropriateness of his conduct” ( People v. Walker, 105 A.D.3d 1154, 1155, 962 N.Y.S.2d 806). Based upon these aggravating factors, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level ( see People v. Worley, 57 A.D.3d 753, 755, 870 N.Y.S.2d 385;People v. Villane, 49 A.D.3d 517, 851 N.Y.S.2d 880).


Summaries of

People v. Cruz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 13, 2013
111 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Cruz

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Alexis M. CRUZ, appellant.

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
111 A.D.3d 685
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7458

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex…

People v. Ruland

As the People correctly concede, the defendant's prior juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been…