From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Yingst

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 21, 2018
167 A.D.3d 1561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

1335 KA 17–01686

12-21-2018

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leon YINGST, Defendant–Appellant.

THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( Correction Law § 168 et seq. ), defendant appeals from an order classifying him as a level two risk. Defendant pleaded guilty to a federal sex offense arising from his possession of, among other things, 3,246 images of child pornography, 553 videos of child pornography, 1,160 images of child erotica, and 4,988 other images of children. Contrary to defendant's contention, although the risk assessment instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) classified defendant as a presumptive level one risk, County Court did not grant an upward departure or improperly employ an automatic override in order to raise defendant's presumptive risk level from a level one to a level two risk. Instead, the court determined that defendant was a presumptive level two risk after it assigned points under risk factor 3 in addition to those also assessed by the Board under risk factors 5, 9, and 11. To the extent that defendant contends that the court erred in assessing defendant 30 points under risk factor 3, we reject that contention. It is well established that "children depicted in pornographic images are each separate victims for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act in general and risk factor 3 in particular" ( People v. Bernecky , 161 A.D.3d 1540, 1540, 76 N.Y.S.3d 723 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 4135030 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Gillotti , 23 N.Y.3d 841, 859–860, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ; People v. Poole , 90 A.D.3d 1550, 1550, 935 N.Y.S.2d 773 [4th Dept. 2011] ).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see Bernecky , 161 A.D.3d at 1541, 76 N.Y.S.3d 723 ).


Summaries of

People v. Yingst

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 21, 2018
167 A.D.3d 1561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

People v. Yingst

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. LEON YINGST…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 2018

Citations

167 A.D.3d 1561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
167 A.D.3d 1561
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 8843

Citing Cases

People v. Phillips

In establishing the appropriate risk level classification under SORA, the People "bear the burden of proving…

People v. Henry

Under the Sex Offender Registration Act, the People "bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the…