From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2006-10578.

March 24, 2009.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Konviser, J.), dated October 31, 2006, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Tonya Kerry of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ.


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

The defendant's contention that the assessment of points based upon his use of forcible compulsion constituted improper "double counting" because he was also assessed points based upon the victim's age is unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634, 635), and, in any event, is without merit ( cf. People v Pietarniello, 53 AD3d 475, 476). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the defendant, the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he accomplished his sex offense through forcible compulsion ( see People v Vasquez, 49 AD3d 1282, 1283-1284; Penal Law § 130.00 [b]; cf. People v Davis, 21 AD3d 590, 591; People v Oglesby, 12 AD3d 857, 859-860; People v Sehn, 295 AD2d 749, 749-751). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed those points, and properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.


Summaries of

People v. Mendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

People v. Mendez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGEL MENDEZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2344
874 N.Y.S.2d 817

Citing Cases

People v. Maxwell

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendant's contention that the…

People v. Farahat

SORA) Guidelines, as the defendant was not under supervision in New York ( see Sex Offender Registration Act:…