People v. Alston

86 A.D.3d 553, 926 N.Y.2d 901
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[554]*554“A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ ” (People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2011], Iv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v Sivells, 83 AD3d 1027 [2011]; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Alston, 86 A.D.3d 553, 926 N.Y.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

86 A.D.3d 553 (People v. Alston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Olin
93 A.D.3d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Abreu
89 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Rosado
88 A.D.3d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Mondo
88 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)