Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (ShawnDya L. Simpson, J.), entered May 15, 2006, which adjudicated him a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 5-C).

Per Curiam.

Order (ShawnDya L. Simpson, J.), entered May 15, 2006, affirmed.

The hearing court was required to set forth "the findings of fact and conclusions of law" upon which its risk assessment determination was based (Correction Law §168-n[3]). Although the court adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender without setting forth the basis for its determination, we are authorized to make our own findings of fact and conclusions of law on the full record before us (see People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]).

The People presented clear and convincing evidence in support of the presumptive level two classification. Defendant's challenge to the 30-point assessment for risk factor 9 is without merit since it is undisputed that his extensive criminal record includes a prior misdemeanor sex offense conviction (see People v Kraeger, 42 AD3d 944 [2007]). Similarly unavailing is his challenge to the 15-point assessment for release without supervision under factor 14 (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]). Even assuming defendant was improperly assessed 10 points for his living situation (see People v Ruddy, 31 AD3d 517 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]), his risk assessment totals 95 points, rendering him a level two offender. Defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure from the presumptive level two classification (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: November 18, 2008