People v. Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Copeland

79 A.D.3d 716, 911 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 716 (People v. Copeland) 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. Copeland, 79 A.D.3d 716, 911 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated September 6, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him as a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s designation of him as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor two and 20 points under risk factor four (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 9-10 [2006]). The victim’s sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009] ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010] ; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010]).

Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor “of a kind, or to a degree, [717]*717that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charache, 9 NY3d 829, 830 [2007]; People v McElhearn, 56 AD3d 978, 979 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, 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, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated September 6, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him as a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s designation of him as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor two and 20 points under risk factor four (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 9-10 [2006]). The victim’s sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009] ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010] ; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010]).

Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor “of a kind, or to a degree, [717]*717that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charache, 9 NY3d 829, 830 [2007]; People v McElhearn, 56 AD3d 978, 979 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 716, 911 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-copeland-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack