# People v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · August 12, 2015 · 131 A.D.3d 520

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2826805

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin Brown, Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** August 12, 2015
- **Citations:** 131 A.D.3d 520; 14 N.Y.S.3d 694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Mastro, Austin, Roman, Sgroi
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2826805

## Opinion text

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), dated January 14, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was properly assessed
*521
points under risk factor six, based on the victim’s mental disability
(see People v Leeks,
43 AD3d 1251 [2007];
cf. People v Green,
104 AD3d 1222 [2013]). In addition, the defendant’s contention that the assessment of points under risk factors five (age of victim) and six constituted improper double counting is unpreserved for appellate review
(see People v Jones,
101 AD3d 836 [2012];
People v Fredlund,
38 AD3d 636 [2007]) and, in any event, without merit
(see People v Caban,
61 AD3d 834, 835 [2009]). The Supreme Court properly assessed points under risk factor 12 based upon the defendant’s removal from treatment programs for disciplinary reasons while incarcerated (see
People v DeCastro,
101 AD3d 693 [2012];
People v Peana,
68 AD3d 737 [2009];
People v Orengo,
40 AD3d 609, 610 [2007]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender (see
People v Grubbs,
107 AD3d 771 [2013];
People v Lacewell,
103 AD3d 784 [2013]).
Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2826805. Public record. Not legal advice.