Majority
The County Court properly assessed the defendant 10 points under risk factor 10 of the Sex Offender Registration Act Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006] [hereinafter SORA Guidelines]), based on the recency of a prior felony committed by the defendant. The People established, by clear and convincing evidence, consisting of the case summary and his presentence report, that the defendant had been released from prison to parole for a felony conviction in Maryland less than three years before he committed the sex offenses underlying the present SORA adjudication (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 , 571-573 [2009]; People v Williams, 95 AD3d 1093 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]; People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628 , 629 [2011]; People v Maldonado, 79 AD3d 1804 , 1804-1805 [2010]; People v Pendelton, 50 AD3d 659 [2008]; Matter of State of New York v J.A., 21 Misc 3d 806 , 816 [2008]; People v Barnes, 6 Misc 3d 469 , 471 [2004]; cf. People v Brown, 25 AD3d 924 [2006]).
The County Court also properly assessed the defendant 10 points under risk factor 12 of the SORA Guidelines, as the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts constituting the underlying sex offenses, notwithstanding his completion of
Cases cited
- People v. Mingo 12 NY3d 563 at 571-573 p. 775
- People v. Williams 95 AD3d 1093 p. 775
- People v. Crandall 90 AD3d 628 at 629 p. 775
- People v. Maldonado 79 AD3d 1804 at 1804-1805 p. 775
- People v. Pendelton 50 AD3d 659 p. 775
- State v. J.A. 21 Misc 3d 806 at 816 p. 775
- People v. Barnes 6 Misc 3d 469 at 471 p. 775
- People v. Brown 25 AD3d 924 p. 775
- People v. Baker 57 AD3d 1472 at 1473 p. 776
- People v. Fortin 29 AD3d 765 at 766 p. 776
- People v. Heichel 20 AD3d 934 at 935 p. 776
- People v. Ramos 25 Misc 3d 533 at 541 p. 776