People v. Irizarry, 98 A.D.3d 1193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Irizarry, 98 A.D.3d 1193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Briscoe (nyappdiv, 2019-05-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Briscoe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
In any event, we would find that the 15 points were appropriately assessed under risk factor 11 given the evidence in the case summary and the presentence report reflecting that defendant admitted in 2006 that he had both an alcohol and drug abuse problem, and had attended inpatient and outpatient treatment in 2005 and 2006 ( see People v Liddle , 159 AD3d 1286 , 1286-1287 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 905 [2018]; People v Irizarry , 98 AD3d 1193, 1193 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Francis (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Examples include People v Frey ( 125 AD3d 424 [2015] [court properly assessed 10 points under the risk factor for the defendant’s age of 20 or less when he committed his first act of sexual misconduct, notwithstanding that it was based on a youthful offender adjudication]), People v Williams ( 122 AD3d 1378, 1379 [2014] [youthful offender adjudications are to be treated as crimes under risk factor 9 for purposes of assessing the defendant’s likelihood of re-offending and danger to public safety]), People v Torres ( 103 AD3d 868 [2013] [court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tony J. Irizarry
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 27, 2012.
98 A.D.3d 1193
Mercure.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Mercure, J.E

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.), entered May 27, 2010, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex, Offender Registration Act.

Upon pleading guilty to one count of criminal sexual act in the second degree in satisfaction of a 12-count indictment, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of three years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), presumptively classifying defendant as a risk level three sex offender. Following a hearing, County Court adopted the Board’s recommendation and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. Defendant appeals.

Despite his claim that he no longer abuses drugs or alcohol, defendant’s history — including his admission that he began to use both marihuana and alcohol in his teens, his subsequent diagnosis as cocaine, alcohol and cannabis dependent, and his prior unsuccessful participation in alcohol and substance abuse treatment programs — supports County Court’s assessment of 15 points for drug and alcohol abuse (see People v Reyes, 48 AD3d 267, 268 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]; People v Whaley, 38 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2007]). As for his criminal history, although most of defendant’s numerous past offenses were misdemeanors, he also had a youthful offender adjudication for attempted burglary in the second degree, a class D violent felony, warranting the assessment of 30 points (see People v Stacconi, [*1194] 81 AD3d 1046, 1046-1047 [2011]; People v Irving, 45 AD3d 1389, 1389-1390 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]). Accordingly, defendant was properly classified as a risk level three sex offender.

Rose, Spain, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.