Opinion
8576 Ind. 2269/14 SCI 3650/15
03-05-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shafik HIRJI, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Camilla Hsu of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathon Krois of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Camilla Hsu of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathon Krois of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level three predicate sex offender for the conduct underlying his conviction under SCI 3650/15, and a level two offender for the conduct underlying his conviction under Indictment No. 2269/14, pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant's two guilty pleas, entered approximately one year apart, based on offenses committed more than one year apart, were properly treated as separate offenses and separate dispositions for SORA purposes, notwithstanding that defendant was sentenced for both at the same time. Defendant was correctly assessed points on both of the two separate risk assessment instruments prepared for the two offenses (see People v. Miller, 149 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 52 N.Y.S.3d 148 [3d Dept. 2017] ). On the second instrument, involving the later crime, defendant was correctly assessed points under the risk factors for a prior sex crime and recency of the prior offense based on the first crime, even though he had not yet been sentenced on that conviction when he committed and pleaded guilty to the second sex offense (see People v. Edwards, 135 A.D.3d 593, 593, 22 N.Y.S.3d 863 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 905, 2016 WL 1739451 [2016] ; People v. Franco, 106 A.D.3d 417, 963 N.Y.S.2d 865 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 4516370 [2013] ; see also CPL 1.20[13] ). Furthermore, there were no redundant proceedings of the type addressed in People v. Cook, 29 N.Y.3d 114, 119–120, 53 N.Y.S.3d 234, 75 N.E.3d 651 [2017].
The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ). The mitigating factors argued by defendant were adequately considered and were outweighed by the danger of future recidivism.