From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hamilton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 18, 2016
139 A.D.3d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2015-07962, 2015-07963.

05-18-2016

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Rashaad HAMILTON, appellant.

Clare J. Degnan, White Plains, NY (Venessa Melly of counsel), for appellant. James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Jennifer Spencer and Laurie Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.


Clare J. Degnan, White Plains, NY (Venessa Melly of counsel), for appellant.

James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Jennifer Spencer and Laurie Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), dated April 29, 2015, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 28, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718 ); and it is further,

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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) following his conviction of promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 ; People v. Granzeier, 137 A.D.3d 989, 26 N.Y.S.3d 708 ). Further, the Supreme Court properly determined that the People presented clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary which tend to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community (see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 121, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). Upon making such a determination, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's application for an upward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 123, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level three sex offender.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, AUSTIN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hamilton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 18, 2016
139 A.D.3d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Rashaad HAMILTON, appellant.

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

Date published: May 18, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
30 N.Y.S.3d 572
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3866

Citing Cases

People v. Young

After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6–C), the defendant was…

People v. Young

After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C), the defendant was…