People v. Lattimore
This text of 57 A.D.3d 752 (People v. Lattimore) 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
The People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant should be designated a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C (see People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675 [2006]). A defendant seeking a downward departure [753]*753has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there are mitigating factors that were not taken into consideration under the guidelines (see People v Taylor, 47 AD3d 907 [2008]). Here, the defendant did not submit any evidence of mitigating factors that were not already taken into consideration under the guidelines. Further, the court appropriately found that the defendant was not over-assessed on the issue of his risk to public safety.
We do not reach the defendant’s contention that he should not have been assessed points for continuing course of sexual misconduct in light of the defendant’s express statement at the hearing that he did not contest the points assessed for this category (see People v Kelly, 46 AD3d 790 [2007]). Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 A.D.3d 752, 871 N.Y.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lattimore-nyappdiv-2008.