GIBSON, TERRANCE, PEOPLE v ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    490
    KA 15-01843
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    TERRANCE GIBSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S.
    Ciaccio, J.), entered October 13, 2015. The order determined that
    defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender
    Registration Act.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is
    remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance
    with the following memorandum: On appeal from an order determining
    that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender
    Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends
    that County Court erred in assessing points for his criminal history
    based upon a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication. We agree.
    Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime
    as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings
    (56 AD3d 1181, 1182, lv denied 12 NY3d 701), rejected defendant’s
    challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we
    recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a
    juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for
    purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings
    should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we
    conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile
    delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9.
    Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9
    renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the
    circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for
    further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is
    warranted (see Brown, 148 AD3d at ___).
    Entered:    April 28, 2017                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 15-01843

Filed Date: 4/28/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/28/2017