People v. DiSano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiSano

49 A.D.3d 1308, 852 N.Y.2d 859

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1308 (People v. DiSano) 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. DiSano, 49 A.D.3d 1308, 852 N.Y.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

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 was presumptively determined to be a level two risk and, although Supreme Court reduced the points assessed against defendant by eliminating 15 points under the category for history of drug or alcohol abuse, defendant’s score nevertheless remained within the range of a level two risk. Defendant on appeal does not challenge the points assessed for any specific risk factor but instead contends that we should exercise our discretion to afford him a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances to justify a downward departure (see People v Ferrara, 38 AD3d 1302 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 815 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

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 was presumptively determined to be a level two risk and, although Supreme Court reduced the points assessed against defendant by eliminating 15 points under the category for history of drug or alcohol abuse, defendant’s score nevertheless remained within the range of a level two risk. Defendant on appeal does not challenge the points assessed for any specific risk factor but instead contends that we should exercise our discretion to afford him a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances to justify a downward departure (see People v Ferrara, 38 AD3d 1302 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 815 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1308, 852 N.Y.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-disano-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack