People v. Arias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arias

119 A.D.3d 665, 988 N.Y.S.2d 894

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

Docket2013-08352

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 665 (People v. Arias) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Arias, 119 A.D.3d 665, 988 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated July 24, 2013, as, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*666 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” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 119 [2011]; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated him a level three sex offender (see People v Wood, 112 AD3d 602 [2013]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 131; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d at 921).

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated July 24, 2013, as, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*666 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” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 119 [2011]; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated him a level three sex offender (see People v Wood, 112 AD3d 602 [2013]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 131; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d at 921).

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 665, 988 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arias-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack