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.
People of State of New York, respondent, v. Kevin T. Johnson, appellant.
Submitted—May 31, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), dated July 6, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the Supreme Court properly assessed 10 points against him under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Although the defendant formally admitted his guilt at a plea proceeding, and participated in a sex offender treatment program, the People established that the defendant wrote a letter to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prior to the SORA hearing, in which he denied his guilt of the present offense. Accordingly, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence the defendant's failure to genuinely accept responsibility for his conduct, “as required by the risk assessment guidelines” (People v. Vega, 79 AD3d 718, 719 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Mitchell, 300 A.D.2d 377, 378; see also People v. Teagle, 64 AD3d 549, 550).
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level two risk assessment is without merit (see People v. Sivells, 83 AD3d 1027; People v. Bussie, 83 AD3d 920).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009–06381
Decided: June 14, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)