From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Auger

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 27, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2017–06281

06-27-2018

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Bruce AUGER, appellant.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated May 15, 2017, 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. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive risk level two designation, to risk level three. The People demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act guidelines (see Correction Law § 168–l[5] ; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4). In particular, in addition to the fact that the defendant previously was diagnosed as a pedophile, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had a history of domestic violence against the victim's mother and a subsequent paramour, and that he had threatened the victim that he would kill her and her mother if she disclosed the abuse (see People v. Winfield, 122 A.D.3d 488, 489, 995 N.Y.S.2d 76 ; People v. Jones, 114 A.D.3d 550, 551, 980 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; People v. Frosch, 69 A.D.3d 699, 699–700, 893 N.Y.S.2d 226 ; People v. James, 45 A.D.3d 555, 556, 845 N.Y.S.2d 396 ). The People also presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had given the victim alcohol prior to some of the abuse, and that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with other children than the one whose victimization led to the defendant's convictions (see People v. Ziliox, 145 A.D.3d 925, 926, 44 N.Y.S.3d 132 ; People v. DeWoody, 127 A.D.3d 831, 832, 6 N.Y.S.3d 290 ; People v. DeJesus, 117 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 986 N.Y.S.2d 244 ). The court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the totality of the circumstances warranted a departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 ).

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Auger

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 27, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

People v. Auger

Case Details

Full title:People of State of New York, respondent, v. Bruce Auger, appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jun 27, 2018

Citations

162 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
162 A.D.3d 1082
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4764

Citing Cases

People v. Pearsall

Moreover, the court properly credited the detective's statement that, during the course of the investigation,…

People v. Torres

Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was reliable hearsay evidence establishing, by clear and…