People v. Jamieson

• Decision Date: 31 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2021–03146
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 904,172 N.Y.S.3d 835 (Mem)
• Parties: PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Jose A. JAMIESON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 904
172 N.Y.S.3d 835 (Mem)

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Jose A. JAMIESON, appellant.

2021–03146

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

Submitted—June 10, 2022
August 31, 2022

James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated March 11, 2021, 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 was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree. Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the County Court assessed the defendant 80 points and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.

To the extent that the defendant contends that the People failed to meet their burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level classification by clear and convincing evidence, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not object to the assessment of any points at the SORA hearing (see generally

172 N.Y.S.3d 836

People v. Murray, 182 A.D.3d 614, 615, 120 N.Y.S.3d 794 ; People v. Bethel, 165 A.D.3d 712, 713, 85 N.Y.S.3d 96 ). In any event, the contention is without merit.

The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 ; People v. Guerro–Bueso, 203 A.D.3d 1184, 163 N.Y.S.3d 422 ). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the defendant has not identified any allegedly...