People v. Gudino-Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gudino-Sanchez

116 A.D.3d 565, 983 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedApril 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 565 (People v. Gudino-Sanchez) 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. Gudino-Sanchez, 116 A.D.3d 565, 983 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered January 2, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level [566]*566two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, we decline to dismiss this appeal on the ground that defendant has been deported (see People v Scott, 113 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2014]). The People have not established that defendant’s absence from the United States renders this appeal moot.

The People presented clear and convincing evidence that defendant did not accept responsibility for his crime, instead blaming the victim (see People v Teagle, 64 AD3d 549 [2d Dept 2009]), and, under the circumstances, his participation in rehabilitation programs was not an acceptance of responsibility. Therefore, the court correctly assessed 10 points under that risk factor.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Cintron, 12 NY3d 60, 70 [2009], cert denied 558 US 1011 [2009]; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]). Defendant did not demonstrate any mitigating factors not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument that would warrant a downward departure. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered January 2, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level [566]*566two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, we decline to dismiss this appeal on the ground that defendant has been deported (see People v Scott, 113 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2014]). The People have not established that defendant’s absence from the United States renders this appeal moot.

The People presented clear and convincing evidence that defendant did not accept responsibility for his crime, instead blaming the victim (see People v Teagle, 64 AD3d 549 [2d Dept 2009]), and, under the circumstances, his participation in rehabilitation programs was not an acceptance of responsibility. Therefore, the court correctly assessed 10 points under that risk factor.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Cintron, 12 NY3d 60, 70 [2009], cert denied 558 US 1011 [2009]; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]). Defendant did not demonstrate any mitigating factors not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument that would warrant a downward departure. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 565, 983 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gudino-sanchez-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack