People v. Hansford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hansford

67 A.D.3d 496, 887 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 496 (People v. Hansford) 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. Hansford, 67 A.D.3d 496, 887 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), entered October 7, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not establish special circumstances warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, which could have assessed him as much as 30 points for those factors. Since “[defendant was given no points [497]*497in any of these categories,” he is not entitled to any “downward modification as he has already received the benefit of zero points for these factors” (People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005]; lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), entered October 7, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not establish special circumstances warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, which could have assessed him as much as 30 points for those factors. Since “[defendant was given no points [497]*497in any of these categories,” he is not entitled to any “downward modification as he has already received the benefit of zero points for these factors” (People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005]; lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 496, 887 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hansford-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack