| People v DeCastro |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08292 [101 AD3d 693] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Richardson DeCastro, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel; Lucas E. Wherry on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), dated April 5, 2011, as, after a hearing, designated him alevel three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that he wascorrectly assessed 15 points under risk factor 12 by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offendersbased upon his refusal to accept appropriate sex offender treatment. Although the appellantmaintains that he should have received a partial assessment of only 5 points under this categorybecause his refusal to attend treatment was motivated by a desire to avoid shame and humiliationwhile in prison rather than by a denial of culpability for his crime, risk factor 12 of the riskassessment instrument "do[es] not provide for [such] midrange scoring" (People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917,918 [2010]). In any event, since the language of the risk assessment instrument pertaining to riskfactor 12 indicates that a refusal to participate in a sex offender treatment program automaticallydemonstrates an unwillingness to accept responsibility for the crime, the appellant's contention inthis regard is unavailing.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Sgroi andMiller, JJ., concur.