People v. Carlisle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carlisle

50 A.D.3d 1496, 856 N.Y.S.2d 760

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

DecidedApril 25, 2008

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1496 (People v. Carlisle) 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. Carlisle, 50 A.D.3d 1496, 856 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), entered January 12, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing 10 points under the category for acceptance of responsibility (see People v Pierce, 27 AD3d 1182 [2006]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The record establishes that defendant attempted to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing and that he has continued to maintain his innocence, thus supporting the determination that defendant “has not sincerely accepted responsibility for his actions” (People v Walker, 15 AD3d 692, 693 [2005]; see People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), entered January 12, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing 10 points under the category for acceptance of responsibility (see People v Pierce, 27 AD3d 1182 [2006]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The record establishes that defendant attempted to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing and that he has continued to maintain his innocence, thus supporting the determination that defendant “has not sincerely accepted responsibility for his actions” (People v Walker, 15 AD3d 692, 693 [2005]; see People v Noriega, 26 AD3d 767 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1496, 856 N.Y.S.2d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carlisle-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack