People v. King

148 A.D.3d 1599, 48 N.Y.S.3d 910
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2017·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), dated April 24, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1600]*1600Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review his contention that the court should have granted him a downward departure to a level one risk, we conclude that his contention is without merit. Defendant failed to allege a mitigating circumstance that is, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines and, to the extent that defendant adequately identified a mitigating circumstance, he failed to prove its existence by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; People v Voymas, 122 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 913 [2015]; see also People v Filkins, 128 AD3d 1231, 1231-1232 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 904 [2015]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, Peradot-to, DeJoseph and Scudder, JJ.

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

People v. King, 148 A.D.3d 1599, 48 N.Y.S.3d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

148 A.D.3d 1599 (People v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Love
2019 NY Slip Op 6937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)