People v Carroll
2013 NY Slip Op 00317 [102 AD3d 848]
January 23, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 27, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Peter Carroll, Appellant.

[*1]Matthew D. Myers, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu, Laurie G.Sapakoff, Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a leveltwo sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant challenges his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to theSex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) following hisconviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on acharge of possession of child pornography.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed him 30points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7(relationship with victim) (seePeople v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 419-421 [2008]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d627 [2011]; People vBretan, 84 AD3d 906, 907 [2011]). Further, based on the defendant's ownstatements regarding his use of alcohol, the County Court properly assessed him 15points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse) (see People v Gulley, 99 AD3d 979 [2012]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d832, 833 [2009]; People vArnold, 35 AD3d 827 [2006]).

To the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downwarddeparture from his presumptive risk level two designation (see People v Johnson,11 NY3d at 421; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at 907-908), upon examining allcircumstances relevant to the defendant's risk of reoffense and danger to the community,the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant'sapplication for a downward departure (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 127-128 [2011];People v Harding, 87 AD3d at 627; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at907-908; People v Stella,71 AD3d 970 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.