From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reede

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 15, 2014
113 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-01-15

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Thomas REEDE, appellant.

Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Jacqueline Rosenblum of counsel), for respondent.


Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Jacqueline Rosenblum of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated August 8, 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.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 (history of drug or alcohol abuse) based on information contained in the presentence report ( see People v. Boykin, 102 A.D.3d 937, 958 N.Y.S.2d 496; People v. Murphy, 68 A.D.3d 832, 832–833, 890 N.Y.S.2d 605; People v. Masters, 19 A.D.3d 387, 796 N.Y.S.2d 133). In light of the defendant's contradictory statements, including his denial of his guilt when interviewed by the Nassau County Probation Department, the defendant was also properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct ( see People v. Mosley, 106 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 965 N.Y.S.2d 632; People v. Vega, 79 A.D.3d 718, 719, 911 N.Y.S.2d 917).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation. Since the defendant failed to identify a mitigating factor not otherwise adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act Guidelines, the Supreme Court lacked the discretion to grant such a downward departure ( see People v. Martinez, 104 A.D.3d 924, 924–925, 962 N.Y.S.2d 336; People v. Whidbee, 101 A.D.3d 840, 954 N.Y.S.2d 887; People v. Peeples, 98 A.D.3d 491, 491–492, 950 N.Y.S.2d 618).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court deprived him of due process by using a Risk Assessment Instrument in determining his risk level is without merit ( see People v. Guitard, 57 A.D.3d 751, 871 N.Y.S.2d 205; People v. Washington, 47 A.D.3d 908, 909, 849 N.Y.S.2d 442; People v. Flowers, 35 A.D.3d 690, 690–691, 826 N.Y.S.2d 687). MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reede

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 15, 2014
113 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Reede

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Thomas REEDE, appellant.

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

Date published: Jan 15, 2014

Citations

113 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
113 A.D.3d 663
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 212

Citing Cases

People v. Stepney

After defendant was convicted and sentenced, the People filed a risk assessment instrument pursuant to the…

People v. Stepney

After defendant was convicted and sentenced, the People filed a risk assessment instrument pursuant to the…