Opinion
12-07-2016
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Jean JEAN–BART, appellant.
Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, NY (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan of counsel; Peter Gallucci on the brief), for respondent.
Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, NY (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan of counsel; Peter Gallucci on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated December 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances presented, where the defendant had already been released from prison before he became classified as a “sex offender” as a result of his conviction (Correction Law § 168–a[1] ), the Supreme Court did not err in determining the defendant's risk level, for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act, based on a risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney's office instead of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law §§ 168–d[3] ; 168–l[8]; compare People v. Grimm, 107 A.D.3d 1040, 967 N.Y.S.2d 189, with People v. Hernaiz, 126 A.D.3d 771, 5 N.Y.S.3d 293, People v. Grabowski, 126 A.D.3d 769, 5 N.Y.S.3d 291, People v. Game, 110 A.D.3d 861, 973 N.Y.S.2d 701, and People v. Black, 33 A.D.3d 981, 823 N.Y.S.2d 485 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor 5 because the victim was between 11 and 16 years old (see People v. Caban, 61 A.D.3d 834, 877 N.Y.S.2d 403 ), 10 points under risk factor 12 because the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction (see People v. Velez, 100 A.D.3d 847, 954 N.Y.S.2d 192 ), 15 points under risk factor 14 because defendant was released without any parole, probation, or supervision (see People v. Radage, 98 A.D.3d 1194, 951 N.Y.S.2d 584 ), and 10 points under risk factor 15 because of the defendant's history of homelessness and uncertainty with respect to his future living arrangements (see People v. Alemany, 13 N.Y.3d 424, 893 N.Y.S.2d 448, 921 N.E.2d 140 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.