People v. Estrella

90 A.D.3d 879, 934 N.Y.2d 718
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level two risk assessment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 180 [2011]; People v Spring, 83 AD3d 1028 [2011]; People v Iorio, 74 AD3d 1306, 1307 [2010]; People v Williams, 46 AD3d 652 [2007]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112; People v Bowles, 89 AD3d at 180; People v Spring, 83 AD3d at 1028; People v Iorio, 74 AD3d at 1307). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Estrella, 90 A.D.3d 879, 934 N.Y.2d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 879 (People v. Estrella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Granzeier
137 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Rodriguez
136 A.D.3d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. DeJesus
127 A.D.3d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)