People v. Artist

2024 NY Slip Op 05148
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 2024
DocketInd No. 1116/16 Appeal No. 2852 Case No. 2023-01992
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 05148 (People v. Artist) 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. Artist, 2024 NY Slip Op 05148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Artist (2024 NY Slip Op 05148)
People v Artist
2024 NY Slip Op 05148
Decided on October 17, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: October 17, 2024
Before: Renwick, P.J., Moulton, Friedman, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.

Ind No. 1116/16 Appeal No. 2852 Case No. 2023-01992

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Sammi Artist, Defendant-Appellant.


Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Corina R. Scott of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Robert Butlien of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham Clott, J.), entered on or about April 6, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correctional Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gilotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There is no basis for a downward departure given the seriousness of the underlying conduct, which defendant committed against his two young daughters (see People v Zepeda, 124 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 902 [2015]), and the danger that a reoffense by defendant would cause a high degree of harm (see People v Roldan, 140 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 17, 2024



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

Related

People v. Roldan
140 A.D.3d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Gillotti
18 N.E.3d 701 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 05148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-artist-nyappdiv-2024.