| People v Pavlisak |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02117 [115 AD3d 1132] |
| March 27, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMichael Pavlisak Sr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),entered July 16, 2012, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offenderpursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual abuse in the first degreein full satisfaction of a five-count indictment that charged him with three counts ofsexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.Defendant was sentenced to 1½ years in prison, followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board ofExaminers of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment instrument that presumptivelyclassified defendant as a risk level three sex offender (135 points) in accordance with theSex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). Following ahearing, County Court classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender and denieddefendant's request for a downward departure. Defendant appeals.
Although County Court failed to issue a written order setting forth its findings of factand conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3), remittal isunnecessary because the court's oral findings are clear, supported by the record andsufficiently detailed to permit intelligent review (see People v Carter, 106 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2013];People v Roberts, [*2]54 AD3d 1106, 1106-1107[2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 713 [2008]). Contrary to defendant's contention, clearand convincing evidence supports County Court's assessment of 15 points under riskfactor 11 for history of drug or alcohol abuse (see People v Brownell, 66 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]).Although defendant claims to have successfully undergone treatment after hisalcohol-related convictions, marihuana was found in his residence when he was arrestedand his live-in girlfriend gave a statement about his continued use of marihuana andalcohol. We also find support for the 10 points assessed under risk factor 12 for failing totake responsibility for his conduct, given his statements in the presentence investigationreport minimizing his conduct (see People v Luebbert, 73 AD3d 1399, 1400 [2010]).Further, defendant did not establish that there were any mitigating factors not accountedfor by the risk assessment guidelines warranting a downward departure (see People v Wells, 101 AD3d1407, 1409 [2012]; Peoplev Good, 88 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 802 [2011]).Accordingly, County Court's classification of defendant as a risk level III sex offenderwill not be disturbed.
Peters, P.J., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.