People v. Edney

• Decision Date: 12 October 2016
• Citation: People v. Edney, 2016 NY Slip Op 6691, 143 A.D.3d 793, 38 N.Y.S.3d 817(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
• Parties: PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Herbert EDNEY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

143 A.D.3d 793

38 N.Y.S.3d 817 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06691

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,

v.Herbert EDNEY, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 12, 2016.

Richard M. Langone, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jacqueline Rosenblum and Monica M.C. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Delligatti, J.), dated March 28, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

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

In 1974, the defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and kidnapping in the second degree in connection with the killing of an eight-year-old child (seePeople v. Edney,47 A.D.2d 906, 366 N.Y.S.2d 219, affd.39 N.Y.2d 620, 385 N.Y.S.2d 23, 350 N.E.2d 400 ).Upon his release on parole in 2011, he was required to register as a sex offender, since he was convicted of kidnapping a child who was not his own, even though there was no evidence that his crime involved a sexual act or had a sexual motive (seeCorrection Law § 168–a[2];People v. Knox,12 N.Y.3d 60, 64, 875 N.Y.S.2d 828, 903 N.E.2d 1149;People v. Cintron,46 A.D.3d 353, 354, 848 N.Y.S.2d 616, affd. sub nom.People v. Knox,12 N.Y.3d 60, 875 N.Y.S.2d 828, 903 N.E.2d 1149;People v. Taylor,42 A.D.3d 13, 14, 835 N.Y.S.2d 241 ).Contrary to the defendant's contention, the application of Correction Law article 6–C to him was proper (seePeople v. Knox,12 N.Y.3d at 64, 875 N.Y.S.2d 828, 903 N.E.2d 1149;People v. Cintron,46 A.D.3d at 354, 848 N.Y.S.2d 616;People v. Taylor,42 A.D.3d at 14, 835 N.Y.S.2d 241 ).

The record established, by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant's failure to accept responsibility (seePeople v. Jamison,137 A.D.3d 1742, 1743, 27 N.Y.S.3d 417 ).The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level made on the basis of his age (seePeople v. Vegh,134 A.D.3d 1084, 21 N.Y.S.3d 719;People v. Torres,124 A.D.3d 744, 746, 998 N.Y.S.2d 464 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before this Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

RIVERA, J.P., CHAM...