People v. Jamieson
This text of 172 N.Y.S.3d 835 (People v. Jamieson) 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.
Opinion
| People v Jamieson |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 05101 |
| Decided on August 31, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on August 31, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
2021-03146
v
Jose A. Jamieson, appellant.
James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated March 11, 2021, 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.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree. Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the County Court assessed the defendant 80 points and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.
To the extent that the defendant contends that the People failed to meet their burden of proving the facts supporting the risk level classification by clear and convincing evidence, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not object to the assessment of any points at the SORA hearing (see generally People v Murray, 182 AD3d 614, 615; People v Bethel, 165 AD3d 712, 713). In any event, the contention is without merit.
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421; People v Guerro-Bueso, 203 AD3d 1184). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the defendant has not identified any allegedly mitigating factor to support his application (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
172 N.Y.S.3d 835, 208 A.D.3d 904, 2022 NY Slip Op 05101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jamieson-nyappdiv-2022.