People v. Arvelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arvelo

77 A.D.3d 452, 908 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 452 (People v. Arvelo) 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. Arvelo, 77 A.D.3d 452, 908 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), entered on or about May 28, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 10 points for defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for his sex offense. Although defendant pleaded guilty to that crime, he refused to be interviewed by the Department of Probation which indicates a failure of genuine acceptance of responsibility. Furthermore, while the court did not use the phrase upward departure, its ruling includes statements which indicate that it believed defendant’s overall criminal record to be so serious as to warrant a discretionary level three adjudication aside from defendant’s point score. The record supports that conclusion, and we affirm the level three adjudication on that basis as well (see People v Larkin, 66 AD3d 592, 593 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), entered on or about May 28, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 10 points for defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for his sex offense. Although defendant pleaded guilty to that crime, he refused to be interviewed by the Department of Probation which indicates a failure of genuine acceptance of responsibility. Furthermore, while the court did not use the phrase upward departure, its ruling includes statements which indicate that it believed defendant’s overall criminal record to be so serious as to warrant a discretionary level three adjudication aside from defendant’s point score. The record supports that conclusion, and we affirm the level three adjudication on that basis as well (see People v Larkin, 66 AD3d 592, 593 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 452, 908 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arvelo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack