From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bryant

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 2, 2017
147 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

02-02-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James E. BRYANT, Defendant–Appellant.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Beth R. Kublin of counsel), for respondent.


Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Beth R. Kublin of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the People twice failed to satisfy the provisions of Correction Law § 168–k(2) and § 168–n(3) requiring 10–days notice of their intention to seek a sexually violent offender designation, which was omitted from the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, the court provided appropriate remedies by adjourning the proceedings (see People v. Lucas, 118 A.D.3d 415, 986 N.Y.S.2d 479 [1st Dept.2014] ). Defendant does not dispute that his out-of-state conviction automatically qualified as an enumerated sexually violent offense, leaving nothing to litigate in this regard (see People v. McLean, 144 A.D.3d 423, 40 N.Y.S.3d 394 [1st Dept.2016] ). We do not find that the People's inaction and the ensuing delays were so egregious that defendant should receive undeserved relief from his legally mandated sexually violent offender status.

Clear and convincing evidence supported the assessment of 20 points under the risk factor for continuing course of sexual misconduct (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009] ). In any event, regardless of whether defendant's correct point score is 105 or 85, he would remain a level two offender, and we find no basis for a downward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ).

SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bryant

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 2, 2017
147 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Bryant

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James E. BRYANT…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2017

Citations

147 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
147 A.D.3d 412
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 720

Citing Cases

People v. Guzman

Although the People failed to provide written notice, 10 days in advance of the proceeding, of their…