People v. Bolden

201 A.D.3d 442, 156 N.Y.S.3d 752, 2022 NY Slip Op 00053
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 6, 2022
DocketInd No. 792/99 Appeal No. 14975 Case No. 2019-05010
StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.3d 442 (People v. Bolden) 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. Bolden, 201 A.D.3d 442, 156 N.Y.S.3d 752, 2022 NY Slip Op 00053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Bolden (2022 NY Slip Op 00053)
People v Bolden
2022 NY Slip Op 00053
Decided on January 06, 2022
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: January 06, 2022
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Oing, Moulton, Kennedy, JJ.

Ind No. 792/99 Appeal No. 14975 Case No. 2019-05010

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

v

Darrell Bolden, Defendant-Appellant.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jillian Lewis of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stoltz, J.), entered on or about July 16, 2019, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). To the extent not accounted for by the risk assessment instrument, the mitigating factors cited by defendant were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying series of predatory sex crimes against multiple victims. Defendant did not establish that his age makes him

unlikely to reoffend (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 145 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 916 [2017]), or that his favorable record of rehabilitation while incarcerated warrants a departure under all the circumstances. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 6, 2022



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

Related

People v. Rodriguez
2016 NY Slip Op 8297 (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)
201 A.D.3d 442, 156 N.Y.S.3d 752, 2022 NY Slip Op 00053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bolden-nyappdiv-2022.