People v. Burch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burch

73 A.D.3d 1145, 900 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1145 (People v. Burch) 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. Burch, 73 A.D.3d 1145, 900 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 25, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the defendant’s presumptive risk level, inasmuch as there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record of a mitigating factor “of a kind or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Kraus, 66 AD3d 854 [2009]; People v Jacobs, 61 AD3d 835, 836 [2009]; People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Agard, 35 AD3d 568 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 25, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the defendant’s presumptive risk level, inasmuch as there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record of a mitigating factor “of a kind or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Kraus, 66 AD3d 854 [2009]; People v Jacobs, 61 AD3d 835, 836 [2009]; People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Agard, 35 AD3d 568 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1145, 900 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burch-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack