People v. Hawthorne, 2016–09619

Decision Date07 February 2018
Docket Number2016–09619
Citation70 N.Y.S.3d 537,158 A.D.3d 651
Parties PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Philip HAWTHORNE, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

158 A.D.3d 651
70 N.Y.S.3d 537

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Philip HAWTHORNE, appellant.

2016–09619

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

Submitted—October 30, 2017
February 7, 2018


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anna Kou of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

158 A.D.3d 652

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), dated July 28, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

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

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of use of a child in a sexual performance ( Penal Law § 263.05 ). Prior to his release from prison, the Supreme Court held a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA). Following the hearing, the court, among other things, assessed the defendant 20 points under risk factor 13, denied the defendant's request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, and adjudicated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in assessing him 20 points under risk factor 13. Risk factor 13, titled "Conduct While Confined or Under Supervision," provides that an offender may be assessed 20 points if "[t]he offender's adjustment to confinement or supervision has been unsatisfactory and has included inappropriate sexual conduct" (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, risk factor 13 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines] ). The examples of "inappropriate sexual behavior" cited in the Guidelines include disciplinary infractions "for behavior such as possessing pornography or any factor related to ... sexual acting out" (id. at 16–17).

"In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought" ( People v. Parris, 153 A.D.3d 68, 82, 60 N.Y.S.3d 169 ; see Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053 ). "The interpretation of the SORA Guidelines is a question of law for the court" ( People v. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 117, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).

Here, the defendant's tier II disciplinary infraction for his attempt to initiate sexual contact with an on-duty corrections officer while he was incarcerated constituted inappropriate sexual conduct within the meaning of the Guidelines (see People v. Faulkner, 151 A.D.3d 601, 601, 55 N.Y.S.3d 249 ; People v. Baluja, 109 A.D.3d 803, 804, 971 N.Y.S.2d 213 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention,

158 A.D.3d 653

risk factor 13 includes conduct that does not rise to the level of "sexual misconduct" as that phrase is defined in Penal Law § 130.20 (see People v. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d at 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; see also Guidelines at 16–17). Accordingly, the defendant was properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct while confined that involved inappropriate sexual conduct (see People v. Faulkner, 151 A.D.3d at 601, 55 N.Y.S.3d 249 ; People v. Baluja, 109 A.D.3d at 804, 971 N.Y.S.2d 213 ).

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level of risk level two to risk level one. "[A] court is empowered to exercise its discretion and depart from the presumptive risk level...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 9, 2021
    ...989, 142 N.Y.S.3d 823, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 02425 ; People v. Colon, 186 A.D.3d 1730, 1732, 130 N.Y.S.3d 89 ; People v. Hawthorne, 158 A.D.3d 651, 653–654, 70 N.Y.S.3d 537 ).The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendan......
  • People v. Bautista
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 23, 2022
    ...one of which was for masturbating in open view (see People v. Harrington, 171 A.D.3d 956, 957, 95 N.Y.S.3d 861 ; People v. Hawthorne, 158 A.D.3d 651, 70 N.Y.S.3d 537 ; People v. Littles, 155 A.D.3d 979, 63 N.Y.S.3d 901 ; People v. Lawson, 90 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). Moreover, ......
  • People v. Diaz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 6, 2019
    ...not proven by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Brown, 161 A.D.3d 1201, 1201–1202, 74 N.Y.S.3d 509 ; People v. Hawthorne, 158 A.D.3d 651, 653–654, 70 N.Y.S.3d 537 ; People v. Robertson, 101 A.D.3d 1671, 1672, 956 N.Y.S.2d 378 ).Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's det......
  • People v. Boutin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 22, 2019
    ...not adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines (see People v. Saintilus, 169 A.D.3d 838, 94 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; People v. Hawthorne, 158 A.D.3d 651, 654, 70 N.Y.S.3d 537 ).Accordingly, we agree with the County Court's determination to deny the defendant's request for a downward departu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT