Court Opinion

ID: 9390482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 17:06:12.237842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.835359
License: Public Domain

People v Almeida (2023 NY Slip Op 02189)

People v Almeida

2023 NY Slip Op 02189

Decided on April 27, 2023

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: April 27, 2023

Before: Renwick, A.P.J., González, Kennedy, Higgitt, JJ. 

Ind No. 2717/14 Appeal No. 112 Case No. 2017-01400 

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vRoger Almeida, Defendant-Appellant.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Faith DiTrolio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level three offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-c), unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Defendant has forfeited his right to appeal by absconding from the court proceedings pertaining to his failure to register as a sex offender. Because "there is a nexus between the appellant's fugitive status and the appellate proceedings" (Wechsler v Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2007]), we dismiss this civil appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine (see People v Acevedo, 195 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 915 [2021]).
In any event, this appeal is without merit. Defendant was properly adjudicated a level three offender. Clear and convincing evidence of defendant's lack of genuine acceptance of responsibility supported the court's point assessment under the applicable risk factor (see People v Lozado, 197 AD3d 1073 [1st Dept 2022]). The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were outweighed by his extensive record of similar acts of sexual abuse, which demonstrated a high risk of recidivism (see e.g. People v Reid, 49 AD3d 338, 339 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 713 [2008]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 27, 2023