People v. Kitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kitt

47 A.D.3d 456, 848 N.Y.S.2d 875

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silver-man, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2006, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 30 points for defendant’s prior violent felony conviction for possessing a loaded firearm, and the alleged remoteness in time of that conviction did not warrant a downward departure (see People v Oginski, 35 AD3d 952 [2006]). Defendant did not demonstrate any other circumstances warranting a downward departure from his presumptive level two classification (see People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

Although defendant challenges a 15-point assessment for having a history of alcohol abuse, defendant’s score exceeded the threshold for a level two adjudication even without those points. In any event, we reject defendant’s arguments concerning that assessment. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silver-man, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2006, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 30 points for defendant’s prior violent felony conviction for possessing a loaded firearm, and the alleged remoteness in time of that conviction did not warrant a downward departure (see People v Oginski, 35 AD3d 952 [2006]). Defendant did not demonstrate any other circumstances warranting a downward departure from his presumptive level two classification (see People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

Although defendant challenges a 15-point assessment for having a history of alcohol abuse, defendant’s score exceeded the threshold for a level two adjudication even without those points. In any event, we reject defendant’s arguments concerning that assessment. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

People v. Kitt, 47 A.D.3d 456, 848 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

47 A.D.3d 456 (People v. Kitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related