Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Tayquan MOSLEY, appellant.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel; G. Aaron Leibowitz on the brief), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.



Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), dated November 30, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court, in determining his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C; hereinafter SORA), erroneously assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. During his interview with the Probation Department, the defendant claimed he was innocent and had pleaded guilty only for the sake of expediency because he had been in jail too long. Although, two weeks later, the defendant formally admitted his guilt in response to questioning by the Supreme Court at the sentencing proceeding, the defendant's contradictory statements, considered together, do not reflect a genuine acceptance of responsibility as required by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15–16 [2006]; People v. Farrice, 100 A.D.3d 976, 977, 954 N.Y.S.2d 459; People v. Perry, 85 A.D.3d 890, 925 N.Y.S.2d 345;People v. Vega, 79 A.D.3d 718, 719, 911 N.Y.S.2d 917;People v. Ferrer, 69 A.D.3d 513, 515, 894 N.Y.S.2d 387).

Thus, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People demonstrated, through “clear and convincing evidence” (Correction Law § 168–n[3] ), that he failed to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12, and properly designated the defendant a level three sexually violent offender.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Mosley
(May 29, 2013)