| People v Vega |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09114 [79 AD3d 718] |
| December 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JuanVega, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), datedJuly 28, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to CorrectionLaw article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court, in determining his risk level under the SexOffender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), erroneously assessed 10points against him under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct.
The Supreme Court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, as mandated byCorrection Law § 168-n (3) (seePeople v Leopold, 13 NY3d 923 [2010]; People v Smith, 11 NY3d 797 [2008]). However, remittal is notrequired since the record in this case is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact andconclusions of law (see People v Rivera,73 AD3d 881 [2010]; People vGuitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; People v Pardo, 50 AD3d 992 [2008]).
The defendant denied his guilt of the sex offense of which he was convicted, both in his interviewwith the Probation Department and upon his admission to the correctional facility where he wasincarcerated. Although, at his plea and sentencing proceedings, the defendant formally admitted hisguilt, and, at the SORA risk assessment hearing, he stated, in a perfunctory manner, that he "accept[ed]. . . the plea of guilty," the defendant's contradictory statements, "considered together, donot reflect a genuine acceptance of responsibility as required by the risk assessment guidelines"(People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377, 378 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765[2006]; People v Chilson, 286 AD2d 828 [2001]).
Thus, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People demonstrated, through "clear andconvincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), that he failed to accept responsibility for hiscriminal conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 12,and properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin andChambers, JJ., concur.