People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bennett

90 A.D.3d 1664, 934 N.Y.2d 922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Clark, 66 AD3d 1366 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 713 [2009]; People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 708 [2008]). In any event, we reject that contention inasmuch as “defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” (People v Regan, 46 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2007]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Clark, 66 AD3d 1366 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 713 [2009]; People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 708 [2008]). In any event, we reject that contention inasmuch as “defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” (People v Regan, 46 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2007]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.

People v. Bennett, 90 A.D.3d 1664, 934 N.Y.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

90 A.D.3d 1664 (People v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related