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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2011·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 858 (People v. Ledbetter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related