FIGUEROA, KENNETH F., PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    631
    KA 14-01892
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    KENNETH F. FIGUEROA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel
    J. Doyle, J.), entered August 29, 2014. The order determined that
    defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender
    Registration Act.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he
    is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act
    (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention,
    Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 for a
    history of drug or alcohol abuse. The assessment is supported by
    reliable hearsay contained in the case summary (see People v Ramos, 41
    AD3d 1250, 1250, lv denied 9 NY3d 809; see generally People v Mingo,
    12 NY3d 563, 573), which provides that defendant admitted to the
    personnel of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
    “a substance abuse history that included alcohol and marijuana for
    which he has never received treatment.” “Furthermore, the record
    establishes that defendant was [referred to] drug and alcohol
    treatment while incarcerated, thus further supporting the court’s
    assessment of points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse” (People v
    Mundo, 98 AD3d 1292, 1293, lv denied 20 NY3d 855; see People v
    Englant, 118 AD3d 1289, 1289). We note that defendant “presented no
    evidence to the contrary” but merely pointed to an inconsistent
    statement in the presentence report wherein he denied any alcohol or
    substance abuse (People v Kyle, 64 AD3d 1177, 1178, lv denied 13 NY3d
    709).
    Entered:    July 1, 2016                           Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-01892

Filed Date: 7/1/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016