People v. Brown-McKnight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brown-McKnight

45 A.D.3d 1334, 845 N.Y.S.2d 601

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1334 (People v. Brown-McKnight) 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. Brown-McKnight, 45 A.D.3d 1334, 845 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Apppeal from an order of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), entered September 19, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing points on the risk assessment instrument based on his failure to accept responsibility for his criminal behavior. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, and it therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Smith, 17 AD3d 1045 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 705 [2005]; People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124, 1124-1125 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 607 [2004]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “because [he] was released without any form of parole or probation supervision, [the c]ourt appropriately assigned 15 points to his score” (People v Hyson, 27 AD3d 919, 920 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.

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

Apppeal from an order of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), entered September 19, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing points on the risk assessment instrument based on his failure to accept responsibility for his criminal behavior. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, and it therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Smith, 17 AD3d 1045 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 705 [2005]; People v Peterson, 8 AD3d 1124, 1124-1125 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 607 [2004]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “because [he] was released without any form of parole or probation supervision, [the c]ourt appropriately assigned 15 points to his score” (People v Hyson, 27 AD3d 919, 920 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 1334, 845 N.Y.S.2d 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-mcknight-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack