People v. Hilliman

102 A.D.3d 849, 957 N.Y.S.2d 896

This text of 102 A.D.3d 849 (People v. Hilliman) 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. Hilliman, 102 A.D.3d 849, 957 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated January 18, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court [850]*850properly denied his request for a downward departure from a presumptive risk level two designation to a level one designation pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]). Although the defendant identified a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 9 [2006]), he failed to establish the facts in support of that mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128-129 [2011]; People v Bowden, 88 AD3d 972, 973 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bowden
88 A.D.3d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Wyatt
89 A.D.3d 112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.3d 849, 957 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hilliman-nyappdiv-2013.