From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Whidbee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 12, 2012
954 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-12

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Charles WHIDBEE, appellant.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 18, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court correctly determined that it lacked the discretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level because the defendant failed to identify, as a matter of law, a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006 ed.) (hereinafter the Guidelines and Commentary) ( see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 124, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85). Specifically, contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that the defendant, of his own volition, did not complete his sex offense, was adequately taken into account by the assessment of 0 points for risk factor two: “Sexual Contact with Victim.” As suggested in the Commentary to the Guidelines, the direction to assess 0 points in that category where no sexual contact actually occurred contemplates the situation in which there was no sexual contact with the victim due to the defendant's “change of mind” (Guidelines and Commentary at 9). Accordingly, the mitigating factor cited by the defendant has adequately been taken into account by the Guidelines and Commentary, and, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for a downward departure ( see generally People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 124, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85).

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Whidbee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 12, 2012
954 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Whidbee

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Charles WHIDBEE, appellant.

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2012

Citations

954 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
101 A.D.3d 840
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8503

Citing Cases

People v. Reede

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive…