PEOPLE, res, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, def-ap

3159. PEOPLE, res, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Kelly L. Smith of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), entered September 10, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6-C), unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the adjudication from level three to level two, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3159. PEOPLE, res, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Kelly L. Smith of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), entered September 10, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6-C), unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the adjudication from level three to level two, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This appeal presents one of the rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion to depart downward from defendant’s presumptive sex offender risk assessment level. During his 30 years of incarceration, defendant committed himself to changing his life. At age 52, he is markedly different from the 20 year-old who committed the violent offense that requires his registration. Defendant has completed academic and therapeutic programming that greatly diminish his likelihood of re-offending. His likelihood of reoffense is further decreased by the pain and mobility problems that he has developed. Under these circumstances, we find that the risk assessment instrument (RAI) did not “fully capture” that defendant has demonstrated his ability to be a constructive member of society who does not pose the high level of reoffense characteristic of a level three sex offender (see Guidelines at 4).

PEOPLE, res, v. ANDREW WILLIAMS, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal