People v Abner (Brian)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Abner (Brian) 2018 NY Slip Op 50542(U) Decided on April 13, 2018 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 13, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570634/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Brian Abner, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), dated August 24, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Per Curiam.

Order (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), dated August 24, 2016, affirmed.

The record supports the court's discretionary upward departure to level three. There was clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861-862 [2014]; People v Roman, 143 AD3d 476 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 912 [2017]). The assessment of the maximum points available for defendant's criminal history was not enough to reflect the extent of that history, including numerous convictions for sex offenses in Florida, California, Nevada and New York, which demonstrate a high risk of sexual recidivism (see People v Taylor, 154 AD3d 524 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 909 [2018]; People v Collins, 127 AD3d 568, 568-569 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 901 [2015]; People v Goodwin, 126 AD3d 610, 611 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 913 [2015]). Moreover, defendant committed the underlying crime after already having been adjudicated a level three offender in New York on a prior case (see People v Faulkner, 122 AD3d 539 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 915 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 13, 2018

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.