At approximately 6:30 P.M., the defendant was riding a bicycle toward a woman who was jogging on the bridle path in Central Park in Manhattan. After he passed her, the defendant got off the bicycle, made kissing noises, and then lunged at the woman and attempted to grab her thighs. She managed to escape the defendant’s grasp and ran away, with the defendant in pursuit for a short distance. The woman hurried to the Central Park Police Precinct, where she reported the encounter.
She then accompanied three police officers as they patrolled the park by car, looking for the defendant. They soon spotted him running down another woman on his bicycle. The police stopped the defendant and arrested him; this second female was crying hysterically and shaking. The defendant admitted to the police that he had gone to Central Park to have sex with a woman by force because he was angry that his girlfriend had cheated on him. The defendant also told the police that he had chased after a third woman, who got away from him.
The defendant was charged in a felony complaint with two counts of attempted rape in the first degree and one count of resisting arrest. Prior to his arraignment, an interviewer from the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) assessed his risk of flight. The CJA interviewer’s report stated that the defendant had been homeless for two years; did not report a NYC area address; did not have a working telephone in residence/cell phone; provided no contacts to CJA; was unemployed; did not have other sources of financial support; and did not provide support for others. Accordingly, the defendant was not recommended for ROR (release on recognizance) because he was a high risk for FTA (failure to appear).
On January 17, 2006, the defendant signed a written waiver of indictment, and agreed to be prosecuted on Superior Court information charging him with attempted first-degree sexual abuse. That same day, the defendant pleaded guilty to the sex crime in exchange for a sentence of six months in jail, to run concurrently with a 10-year period of probation. The defendant was informed that as a consequence of his plea he would be required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA.
Supreme Court put over sentencing in order for a presentence report (PSR) to be prepared by the New York City Department of Probation. The probation officer who interviewed defendant on January 17, 2006 noted on the PSR that he appeared to have minimal community ties, reporting that he was not domiciled and unemployed; and reported that he was currently not domiciled and was unable to provide an address or a shelter as to where he was residing. Domestic Violence was not involved.
Prior to the SORA hearing, the People prepared and provided the court and the defendant with the RAI, as required by Correction Law. The People sought to assess the defendant points on the RAI, thus classifying him presumptively as a level two sex offender. As relevant here, the People assigned the defendant 10 points under risk factor 15, Living or Employment Situation in the SORA Guidelines promulgated by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. These 10 points were critical because a score of 70 or less on the RAI results in a presumptive risk assessment of level one.
To Be Cont…..
When sex offenders get away with the crime they committed, they are likely to commit such crime over again. If you want to permanently put someone in jail so they would not be a threat to others, approach the New York Sex Crime Attorney together with the NYC Criminal Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates and discuss the most effective strategy you can use in court.