People v. Flowers

86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.2d 323
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Flowers. Read the opinion of the Court — 59 A.D.3d 1141

Opinion

“A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ ” (People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920 [2011], Iv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]). The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and thus, properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920 [2011]; People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834 [2010]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that he was assigned 20 points under risk factor 5 (victim was 11 through 16 years of age), when the victim of his sexual assault was close to the age of 17, did not result in an overassessment of the risk he posed to public safety. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Flowers, 86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

86 A.D.3d 535 (People v. Flowers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bussie
83 A.D.3d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Mendez
79 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)