People v. Mondo

88 A.D.3d 676, 930 N.Y.2d 482
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2011·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

“A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ ” (People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Alston, 86 AD3d 553, 554 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender (see People v Padro, 84 AD3d 1046 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 711 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Eng, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Mondo, 88 A.D.3d 676, 930 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

88 A.D.3d 676 (People v. Mondo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hamilton
138 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Newton
134 A.D.3d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Morel-Baca
127 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Wood
112 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Santana
104 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)