People v. Callaghan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Callaghan

56 A.D.2d 363, 868 N.Y.S.2d 182

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 363 (People v. Callaghan) 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. Callaghan, 56 A.D.2d 363, 868 N.Y.S.2d 182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Defendant’s conduct following his release from custody did not warrant such a departure, given the seriousness of the underlying crime and defendant’s overall criminal record.

Defendant’s challenges to his total presumptive risk factor score are unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing, since it is undisputed that even with the reductions he seeks, he would still qualify as a level three offender. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Defendant’s conduct following his release from custody did not warrant such a departure, given the seriousness of the underlying crime and defendant’s overall criminal record.

Defendant’s challenges to his total presumptive risk factor score are unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing, since it is undisputed that even with the reductions he seeks, he would still qualify as a level three offender. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 363, 868 N.Y.S.2d 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-callaghan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack