People v. Fields

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Berdejo

    192 A.D.3d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 15 times

    After a hearing to designate the defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), at which the defendant argued against an assessment of points under risk factor 12 (acceptance of responsibility) and sought a downward departure from his presumptive level three risk designation, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct (seePeople v. Fields, 186 A.D.3d 1541, 129 N.Y.S.3d 512 ; People v. Fonteboa, 149 A.D.3d 880, 881, 49 N.Y.S.3d 911 ). In particular, although the defendant initially admitted his guilt to the police and pleaded guilty, the People presented evidence that the defendant thereafter denied or minimized his culpability, including to the Department of Probation and during sex offender treatment.

  2. People v. Cotugno

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct (see People v Gonzalez, 194 A.D.3d 1083, 1083; People v Berdejo, 192 A.D.3d 923, 924; People v Fields, 186 A.D.3d 1541, 1541). In particular, although the defendant initially admitted his guilt to the police and pleaded guilty, the People presented evidence that the defendant thereafter minimized his culpability, including to the Department of Probation and when interviewed for an "Adult Psychosexual Risk Evaluation."

  3. People v. Cotugno

    224 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure and designated him a level two sex offender. [1] Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct (see People v. Gonzalez, 194 A.D.3d 1083, 1083, 148 N.Y.S.3d 497; People v. Berdejo, 192 A.D.3d 923, 924, 140 N.Y.S.3d 733; People v. Fields, 186 A.D.3d 1541, 1541, 129 N.Y.S.3d 512). In particular, although the defendant initially admitted his guilt to the police and pleaded guilty, the People presented evidence that the defendant thereafter minimized his culpability, including to the Department of Probation and when interviewed for an "Adult Psychosexual Risk Evaluation."

  4. People v. Ramirez

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 5875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct, thus warranting the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 12 (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]). Although the defendant formally admitted his guilt by entering a plea of guilty, the People presented evidence that the defendant thereafter denied or minimized his culpability. Thus, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility (see People v Berdejo, 192 A.D.3d 923, 924; People v Fields, 186 A.D.3d 1541, 1541; People v Fonteboa, 149 A.D.3d 880, 881; People v Benitez, 140 A.D.3d 1140, 1140-1141).

  5. People v. Gonzalez

    194 A.D.3d 1083 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 17 times

    After a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level designation pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), at which the defendant argued against an assessment of points under risk factor 12 (acceptance of responsibility) and sought a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People presented clear and convincing evidence that he did not genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct (see People v Berdejo, 192 AD3d 923; People v Fields, 186 AD3d 1541; People v Fonteboa, 149 AD3d 880). Although the defendant pleaded guilty, the People presented evidence of statements he made during his interview with the Department of Probation, and recounted in the presentence investigation report (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572-573), indicating that he denied his culpability by asserting that he was told to plead guilty to avoid a longer sentence.