People v. Mackie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mackie

33 A.D.3d 490, 823 N.Y.S.2d 43

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 490 (People v. Mackie) 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. Mackie, 33 A.D.3d 490, 823 N.Y.S.2d 43 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication, which was based upon defendant’s prior felony sex crime conviction, a presumptive overriding factor under the applicable guidelines (see People v Judd, 29 AD3d 431 [2006]). The court properly concluded that defendant’s present circumstances did not warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

Defendant’s arguments concerning the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law § 168-Z [5]) are without merit (see People v Joe, 26 AD3d 300 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see also People v Bligen, 33 AD3d 489 [2006] [decided herewith]). Concur—Buckley, EJ, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication, which was based upon defendant’s prior felony sex crime conviction, a presumptive overriding factor under the applicable guidelines (see People v Judd, 29 AD3d 431 [2006]). The court properly concluded that defendant’s present circumstances did not warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).

Defendant’s arguments concerning the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see Correction Law § 168-Z [5]) are without merit (see People v Joe, 26 AD3d 300 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see also People v Bligen, 33 AD3d 489 [2006] [decided herewith]). Concur—Buckley, EJ, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 490, 823 N.Y.S.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mackie-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack