| People v Mendez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09236 [79 AD3d 834] |
| December 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LinoMendez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy ofcounsel; Tamara De Moor on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.),dated July 2, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant toCorrection Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender under the SexOffender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence(see Correction Law art 6-C; Peoplev Pardo, 50 AD3d 992 [2008]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738 [2007]; People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675[2006]). Based upon the defendant's prior conviction of driving while intoxicated, his score on theMichigan Alcoholic Screening test, and facts contained in the case record and presentence report(see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832[2009]; People v Smolen, 47 AD3d 623 [2008]; People v Yarborough, 43 AD3d 1129 [2007]), the Supreme Courtproperly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 for a history of alcohol abuse (see SexOffender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 15 [2006]; People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751[2008]).
The defendant failed to present any mitigating factors which would warrant a downward departureand, thus, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level twosex offender (see People v Blackman, 78 AD3d 803 [2010]; People v Baez, 77 AD3d 406 [2010]).Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.