Court Opinion

ID: 3173033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-28 16:07:40.588535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:50.256446
License: Public Domain

*1252
   
  Rose, J.
 

  Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), entered February 24, 2014, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender and a sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
 

  Defendant lured a young woman to his restaurant under the auspices of offering her employment as a waitress and then proceeded to physically subdue her with rope, rape her and force her to perform oral sex on him while holding a gun to her head. As a result, he was convicted of, among other crimes, rape in the first degree, and thereafter he was sentenced to 12V2 to 25 years in prison. Prior to his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders evaluated defendant and prepared a risk assessment instrument (hereinafter RAI), which recommended that he be classified as a risk level two sex offender and a sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act
  
   (see
  
  Correction Law art 6-C). Following a hearing, County Court found that defendant was a sexually violent offender and was presumptively classified as a risk level two sex offender under the RAI, but granted the People’s application for an upward departure based upon the violent and egregious nature of defendant’s conduct that was not reflected in the RAI. Consequently, County Court classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender and a sexually violent offender. Defendant now appeals.
 

  Initially, we note that an “[u]pward departure from the presumptive risk level is justified when an aggravating factor, not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines, is established by clear and convincing evidence”
  
   (People v Becker,
  
  120 AD3d 846, 847 [2014],
  
   lv denied
  
  24 NY3d 908 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];
  
   see People v Gillotti,
  
  23 NY3d 841, 861-862 [2014];
  
   People v Padin,
  
  122 AD3d 600, 600 [2014],
  
   lv denied
  
  24 NY3d 913 [2015]). Notably, upward departures have been upheld where, as here, the criminal activity was particularly egregious and, therefore, not properly taken into account by the RAI
  
   (see e.g. People v Suber,
  
  91 AD3d 619, 620 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  19 NY3d 801 [2012];
  
   People v Wasley,
  
  73 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2010];
  
   People v Joslyn,
  
  27 AD3d 1033, 1034-1035 [2006]). Although defendant was given 30 points under the RAI for the violent nature of the crimes involving the use of a weapon, the RAI failed to reflect the premeditated nature of defendant’s conduct or the deceitful and manipulative manner in which the victim was drawn to the crime scene. The RAI also did not take into account defendant’s depraved and erratic behavior during the
   
   *1253
   
  ordeal as related by the victim during her grand jury testimony. Inasmuch as we agree that the foregoing warranted an upward departure, we find no reason to disturb County Court’s classification of defendant as a risk level three sex offender. Defendant’s remaining argument that he should have been classified as a risk level one sex offender is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit.
 

  Peters, P.J., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.