People v. Hood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hood

124 A.D.3d 497, 998 N.Y.S.2d 619

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2015

Docket1190/10

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 497 (People v. Hood) 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. Hood, 124 A.D.3d 497, 998 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level two predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498 The record, including defendant’s admissions, supports the court’s assessment of points under the risk factor for drug or alcohol abuse. In any event, regardless of whether the points at issue should have been assessed, defendant remains a level two offender, and we find no basis for a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level two predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498 The record, including defendant’s admissions, supports the court’s assessment of points under the risk factor for drug or alcohol abuse. In any event, regardless of whether the points at issue should have been assessed, defendant remains a level two offender, and we find no basis for a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 497, 998 N.Y.S.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hood-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack