From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Iacono

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 10, 2016
136 A.D.3d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2013-08888.

02-10-2016

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Lawrence IACONO, appellant.

  Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and David Bernstein of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Ilisa T. Fleischer and Robert L. Cavallo of counsel), for respondent.


Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and David Bernstein of counsel), for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Ilisa T. Fleischer and Robert L. Cavallo of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated July 18, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

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

“A court may exercise its discretion and depart upward from the presumptive risk level where ‘it concludes that there exists an aggravating ... factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act] guidelines' ” (People v. Richardson, 101 A.D.3d 837, 838, 957 N.Y.S.2d 158, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 2006 [hereinafter the Guidelines]; see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701; People v. LaPorte, 119 A.D.3d 758, 989 N.Y.S.2d 309; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 119, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the People presented clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines “which tend [ ] to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community” (People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 121, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85). Upon determining the existence of these aggravating factors, 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 two sex offender.


Summaries of

People v. Iacono

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 10, 2016
136 A.D.3d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Iacono

Case Details

Full title:People of State of New York, respondent, v. Lawrence Iacono, appellant.

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
24 N.Y.S.3d 415
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 949

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

The People are required to prove the existence of certain aggravating circumstances by clear and convincing…