People v Correa

Annotate this Case
People v Correa 2015 NY Slip Op 03412 Decided on April 23, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 23, 2015
Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.
14920 1429/12

[*1] The People of the State of New York Respondent,

v

Rene Correa, Defendant-Appellant.



Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Katherine A. Gregory of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level three predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly applied the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction, and properly exercised its discretion in denying a downward departure. Defendant's record of felony sex crimes is very serious, and defendant committed the underlying crime after having already been adjudicated a level three sex offender (see e.g. People v Smalls, 120 AD3d 1145 [1st Dept 2014]; People v Carter, 114 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2014]). Although defendant's prior convictions occurred in 2000, they were not remote, particularly since defendant spent approximately 6 of the 10 years between those offenses and the instant offense in prison or on probation supervision. Even while in prison, defendant violated prison rules by soliciting sex from another inmate. Defendant cites no mitigating factors which are not outweighed by his demonstrated propensity to commit sex crimes.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 23, 2015

CLERK



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.