People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brown

91 A.D.3d 989, 935 N.Y.2d 909

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 989 (People v. Brown) 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, 91 A.D.3d 989, 935 N.Y.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

[990]*990We affirm. Defendant failed to challenge any of the points assessed on the risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified him as a risk level III offender, did not request a downward departure and his counsel acknowledged that his prior convictions subjected him to a mandatory override. Further, he raised no objection to the proof presented at the hearing, did not offer any evidence and did not testify. In light of defendant’s failure to raise any issue regarding the classification of him as a risk level III sex offender before Supreme Court, defendant’s claim that the court’s order adopting that classification was not adequately supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law is not properly before us (see People v Jordan, 62 AD3d 1176, 1176-1177 [2009], lv denied 16 NY3d 709 [2011]).

Mercure, A.P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

McCarthy, J.

[990]*990We affirm. Defendant failed to challenge any of the points assessed on the risk assessment instrument that presumptively classified him as a risk level III offender, did not request a downward departure and his counsel acknowledged that his prior convictions subjected him to a mandatory override. Further, he raised no objection to the proof presented at the hearing, did not offer any evidence and did not testify. In light of defendant’s failure to raise any issue regarding the classification of him as a risk level III sex offender before Supreme Court, defendant’s claim that the court’s order adopting that classification was not adequately supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law is not properly before us (see People v Jordan, 62 AD3d 1176, 1176-1177 [2009], lv denied 16 NY3d 709 [2011]).

Mercure, A.P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 989, 935 N.Y.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack