People v. Babcock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Babcock

35 A.D.3d 689, 824 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 689 (People v. Babcock) 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. Babcock, 35 A.D.3d 689, 824 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), dated April 29, 2005, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

[690]*690Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in assessing him 10 points for his lack of acceptance of responsibility for his crime, as the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765 [2006]; People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006]; People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25-26 [2005]; People v Walker, 15 AD3d 692, 692-693 [2005]; People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377 [2002]; People v Chilson, 286 AD2d 828 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), dated April 29, 2005, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

[690]*690Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in assessing him 10 points for his lack of acceptance of responsibility for his crime, as the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765 [2006]; People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006]; People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25-26 [2005]; People v Walker, 15 AD3d 692, 692-693 [2005]; People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377 [2002]; People v Chilson, 286 AD2d 828 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 689, 824 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-babcock-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack