People v. Carroll

102 A.D.3d 848, 959 N.Y.S.2d 503

This text of 102 A.D.3d 848 (People v. Carroll) 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. Carroll, 102 A.D.3d 848, 959 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[849]*849Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant challenges his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) following his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on a charge of possession of child pornography.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed him 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 419-421 [2008]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d 627 [2011]; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d 906, 907 [2011]). Further, based on the defendant’s own statements regarding his use of alcohol, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse) (see People v Gulley, 99 AD3d 979 [2012]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Arnold, 35 AD3d 827 [2006]).

To the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at 907-908), upon examining all circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 127-128 [2011]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d at 627; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at 907-908; People v Stella, 71 AD3d 970 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Johnson
900 N.E.2d 930 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
People v. Arnold
35 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Murphy
68 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Stella
71 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Bretan
84 A.D.3d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Harding
87 A.D.3d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Wyatt
89 A.D.3d 112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Gulley
99 A.D.3d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.3d 848, 959 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carroll-nyappdiv-2013.