People v Robertson

People v Robertson 2012 NY Slip Op 08947 Released on December 21, 2012 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Released on December 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
1329 KA 12-00112

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

KEEGAN ROBERTSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


Appeal from an order of the Seneca County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, A.J.), entered October 31, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.


J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BARRY PORSCH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERLOO, FOR RESPONDENT.


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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in assessing 30 points against him under risk factor 3, for having three or more victims. "[I]t is well settled that, in determining the number of victims for SORA purposes, the hearing court is not limited to the crime of which defendant was convicted" (People v Gardiner, 92 AD3d 1228, 1229, lv denied 19 NY3d 801). Here, the court properly considered "reliable hearsay evidence," including defendant's statements to the police, in determining the number of victims (§ 168-n [3]; see People v Christie, 94 AD3d 1263, 1263, lv denied 19 NY3d 808).

The court also properly denied defendant's request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level based upon his young age at the time of the underlying offenses. A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where "there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cummings, 81 AD3d 1261, 1262, lv denied 16 NY3d 711). Here, the guidelines adequately addressed defendant's age when he committed his first sex crime, and the court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 because, at age 20 or less, he committed a sex offense that resulted in an adjudication or a
conviction of a sex crime.
Entered: December 21, 2012
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court