Court Opinion

ID: 9902015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 20:07:47.749077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.143851
License: Public Domain

People v Lozano (2023 NY Slip Op 06065)

People v Lozano

2023 NY Slip Op 06065

Decided on November 22, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2019-10947

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vJamie Lozano, appellant. 

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Boksenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Christopher Blira-Koessler of counsel; Alexander Vidal on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), dated August 13, 2019, 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 promoting a sexual performance by a child (two counts) (Penal Law § 263.15). Following a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 105 points, including 10 points for not accepting responsibility. The court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court should not have assessed points against him for not accepting responsibility.
The issue the defendant raises is academic under these circumstances since deducting those points from the total points assessed against the defendant under factors not contested by him would not alter his presumptive risk level (see People v Johnson, 168 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111; People v Rosario, 164 AD3d 625).
DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, CHRISTOPHER and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court