People v Watson

People v Watson 2013 NY Slip Op 05562 Decided on August 7, 2013 Appellate Division, Second 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.

Decided on August 7, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
PETER B. SKELOS
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2011-00582

[*1]People of State of New York, respondent,

v

Stacey Watson, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of
counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove and Linda Breen of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated January 10, 2011, as, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly assessed 15 points under risk factor 12 because the People failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he failed to accept responsibility and that he refused or was expelled from treatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see generally People v Cuesta, 65 AD3d 1113, 1114; People v Weideman, 51 AD3d 888; People v Sinclair, 23 AD3d 537; People v Oquendo, 1 AD3d 421, 422). In any event, this contention is without merit (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16 [2006]; People v DeCastro, 101 AD3d 693; People v Peana, 68 AD3d 737; People v Orengo, 40 AD3d 609, 610). Moreover, the defendant's unsatisfactory conduct during his incarceration, which was established, inter alia, by the case summary, warranted the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 16 [2006]; People v Williams, 100 AD3d 610, 611; People v Niola, 50 AD3d 991). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender.
RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino [*2]

Clerk of the Court