People v. Williams
Docket 2022-01996
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02426
- Docket
- 2022-01996
Appeal from a Supreme Court SORA hearing order designating defendant a level two sex offender
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order designating Benjamin Williams a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual performance material; after a SORA hearing the court scored him 80 points on the risk instrument, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and imposed the level two designation. The appellate court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion because the quantity, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of images supported the assessed risk, and other claimed mitigating factors were either unpreserved or already accounted for by the Guidelines.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request for a downward departure from the presumptive SORA risk level
- Whether the facts (duration of viewing, number and nature of files, and sharing) justified a level two designation despite potential overassessment under certain risk factors
- Whether other alleged mitigating factors (lack of prior criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, supervision and treatment conditions) warranted departure
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the SORA Guidelines and precedent requiring a defendant first identify an appropriate mitigating factor and prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the court found the defendant's lengthy viewing, the number and nature of images and videos, and his sharing of material increased his assessed risk and outweighed any mitigation. Other claimed mitigators were either not preserved at the hearing or were already accounted for by the Guidelines, so no downward departure was warranted.
Authorities Cited
- People v Gillotti23 NY3d 841
- Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary2006
- People v Downes216 AD3d
Parties
- Appellant
- Benjamin Williams
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Michael D. Kitsis
- Judge
- Lara J. Genovesi
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Order date being appealed
- 2022-02-17
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further appeal
If the defendant wishes to seek review by the New York Court of Appeals, he should consult counsel promptly about the standards for leave to appeal and applicable deadlines.
- 2
Comply with SORA requirements
The defendant should ensure full compliance with registration, supervision, and treatment conditions associated with a level two designation to avoid additional penalties.
- 3
Consider preservation practices for future hearings
Defense counsel should document and raise all potential mitigating factors at the SORA hearing record if they intend to argue for a downward departure on appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision to classify Benjamin Williams as a level two sex offender and denied his request to reduce that risk level.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Benjamin Williams is directly affected; the designation requires registration and subjects him to the supervision and conditions tied to a level two sex offender.
- Why wasn't his risk level lowered?
- The court found that the amount, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of child sexual material increased his risk, and that other reasons he raised were either not properly preserved or already covered by the Guidelines.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The decision was by the Appellate Division; further appeal to the Court of Appeals may be possible but would generally require permission or meeting the court's jurisdictional criteria.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Williams - 2026 NY Slip Op 02426 People v Williams 2026 NY Slip Op 02426 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Benjamin Williams, appellant. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Elizabeth Batkin of counsel), for appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2022-01996 Lara J. Genovesi, J.P. Linda Christopher Lillian Wan Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Shlomit Heering of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael D. Kitsis, J.), dated February 17, 2022, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of possessing a sexual performance by a child. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant a total of 80 points on the risk assessment instrument, denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals. "'A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of (1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'" ( People v Coleman , 225 AD3d 792, 794 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Downes , 216 AD3d 1183, 1183-1184; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 860). "'If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the SORA court must exercise its discretion by weighing the mitigating factor to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism'" ( People v Coleman , 225 AD3d at 794 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Downes , 216 AD3d at 1184; see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d at 861). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application for a downward departure. Although it has been recognized that the assessment of points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) may result in an overassessment of the risk posed to the community by certain offenders whose crime was the possession of images of child sexual abuse ( see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d at 861; People v Oyola , 217 AD3d 791, 792), a downward departure is not warranted under the circumstances here ( see People v Smith , 187 AD3d 1228, 1229). The length of time the defendant had been viewing child pornography, the number and nature of the images and video files he possessed, and the defendant's sharing of that material with others, all militated against a downward departure ( see People v Fernandez , 219 AD3d 760, 763; People v Smith , 187 AD3d at 1229; People v Goldman , 150 AD3d 905, 907). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the fact that the total of 80 points fell on the lower end of the risk level two designation does not warrant a downward departure ( see People v Rucano , 213 AD3d 709, 711). The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a downward departure based upon certain other alleged mitigating factors, including a lack of a prior criminal history, is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise these alleged mitigating factors as a ground for a downward departure at the SORA hearing ( see People v Infantino , 215 AD3d 768, 770-771). In any event, the defendant's lack of prior criminal history was adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see id. at 771; People v Bigelow , 175 AD3d 1443, 1444). The other alleged mitigating factors identified by the defendant, including his acceptance of responsibility, and the strict supervision he will be under on probation, a condition of which includes participation in a sex offender treatment program, were also adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Laskaris , 231 AD3d 1173, 1174; People v Infantino , 215 AD3d at 771; People v Peoples , 189 AD3d 1282, 1282-1283). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure and designated the defendant a level two sex offender. GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph