NY court affirms rape conviction, orders report redacted

A state appeals court has affirmed a rape conviction, but ordered changes to a presentencing report because parts of the document referred to crimes of which the defendant was acquitted.

Defendant Christopher L. Wilmet, 37, was convicted before Livingston County Court Judge Kevin Van Allen in January 2023 of second-degree rape and endangering the welfare of a child.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the convictions, but ordered the redactions.

The Fourth Department agreed with Wilmet’s appellate attorney, Bradley E. Keem, that Van Allen erred in failing to redact improper statements from the report “because they reference criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted.”

“Specifically, we agree with defendant that the inclusion in the PSR of statements regarding alleged sexual offenses by defendant involving another child, of which he was acquitted, was inappropriate and inflammatory,” the court wrote.

The court directed Van Allen to redact portions of the report referring to a statement by the victim “that there could be another victim;” a quotation from an investigator stating that Wilmet “was having sexual intercourse with another underage female as well;” and a sentence stating that Wilmet had been sexually “assaulting another victim since she was nine years old.”

The court rejected Wilmet’s contentions that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that Van Allen erred in removing a juror. The court noted that Wilmet’s trial attorney failed to object.

The court also rejected Wilmet’s claim that the imposition of persistent felony offender status was “unduly harsh and severe.”

Wilmet was sentenced to 17 years to life in state prison.

“We decline to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to vacate the persistent felony offender finding,” the court ruled.

“We conclude that defendant’s history and character … and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and life-time supervision will best serve the public interest,” the court wrote.

Keem argued that Wilmet was denied effective assistance of counsel based on the failure to challenge the prosecutor’s amended certificate of compliance, make a speedy trial claim, fail to ask meaningful questions during voir dire and other supposed shortcomings.

“Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case in totality … we conclude … that defendant received meaningful representation,” the court ruled.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035