Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert WILSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about November 16, 2022, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Correction Law § 168–n (3) requires a court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based.” Here, the court failed to adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order. However, since the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, remittal is not required (see People v. Carvente, 233 A.D.3d 491, 491, 221 N.Y.S.3d 116 [1st Dept. 2024]; People v. Eaton, 105 A.D.3d 722, 963 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2d Dept. 2013]).
The record does not support an assessment of points under the risk factor for a history of drug or alcohol abuse. While defendant had reported to probation officials that he had used marijuana since he was 15, it did not support a finding that defendant had a history of substance abuse that would increase his risk of reoffending (see generally People v. Palmer, 20 N.Y.3d 373, 378–379, 960 N.Y.S.2d 719, 984 N.E.2d 917 [2013]). In any event, while we find that defendant should not have been assessed points on this risk factor, a reduction of 15 points does not alter defendant's presumptive risk level two designation (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 536, 997 N.Y.S.2d 395 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 915, 2015 WL 649315 [2015]).
Regardless of whether defendant's correct point score is 80 or 95, the court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure, since any mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4523
Decided: June 03, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)