People v. Bravo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bravo

83 A.D.3d 518, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedApril 14, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 518 (People v. Bravo) 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. Bravo, 83 A.D.3d 518, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not ask the hearing court for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Therefore, that claim is unpreserved (see People v Arps, 65 AD3d 939 [2009]). In any event, we find no basis for such a departure. Defendant’s point score was well above the threshold for a level two offender, and the underlying sex crimes were committed against eight-year-old children. The mitigating factors asserted by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not ask the hearing court for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Therefore, that claim is unpreserved (see People v Arps, 65 AD3d 939 [2009]). In any event, we find no basis for such a departure. Defendant’s point score was well above the threshold for a level two offender, and the underlying sex crimes were committed against eight-year-old children. The mitigating factors asserted by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 518, 920 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bravo-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack