People v. Ledbetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ledbetter

82 A.D.3d 858, 918 N.Y.2d 358

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 858 (People v. Ledbetter) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Ledbetter, 82 A.D.3d 858, 918 N.Y.2d 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People established by clear and convincing evidence the applicability of the fourth override, namely, that there has been “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Martin, 79 AD3d 717 [2010]). The defendant was diagnosed with pedophilia and, accordingly, an override to a level three designation was appropriate (see People v Hoffman, 62 AD3d 976 [2009]).

In any event, even absent the aforementioned override, under the facts of this case, an upward departure to a risk level three was warranted (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4-5 [2006]; People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People established by clear and convincing evidence the applicability of the fourth override, namely, that there has been “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Martin, 79 AD3d 717 [2010]). The defendant was diagnosed with pedophilia and, accordingly, an override to a level three designation was appropriate (see People v Hoffman, 62 AD3d 976 [2009]).

In any event, even absent the aforementioned override, under the facts of this case, an upward departure to a risk level three was warranted (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4-5 [2006]; People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 858, 918 N.Y.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ledbetter-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack