From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mark Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 2010
79 A.D.3d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2007-09200.

December 7, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated September 6, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him as a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrew Fukuda of counsel; Adam Citron on the brief), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Román, JJ.


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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's designation of him as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law § 168-n). The County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor two and 20 points under risk factor four ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 9-10 [2006]). The victim's sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points ( see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 897).

Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor "of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Charache, 9 NY3d 829, 830; People v McElhearn, 56 AD3d 978, 979).


Summaries of

People v. Mark Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 2010
79 A.D.3d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Mark Copeland

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK COPELAND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 7, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9112
911 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

People v. Kost

In establishing a defendant's risk level assessment pursuant to SORA, "the People bear the burden of…

People v. Copeland

Decided February 22, 2011. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 79 AD3d 716. Motions for Leave To Appeal…