People v. Jaramillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jaramillo

49 A.D.3d 835, 853 N.Y.2d 890

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 2008·Published

Opinion

[836]*836Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level two sex offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11-12 [2006 ed]). The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the existence of mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Martinez, 39 AD3d 835 [2007]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

[836]*836Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level two sex offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Wright, 37 AD3d 797 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11-12 [2006 ed]). The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the existence of mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Martinez, 39 AD3d 835 [2007]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

People v. Jaramillo, 49 A.D.3d 835, 853 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 835 (People v. Jaramillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related