People v. Montalvo

74 A.D.3d 1833, 902 N.Y.S.2d 483

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1833 (People v. Montalvo) 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. Montalvo, 74 A.D.3d 1833, 902 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), entered January 8, 2009. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing points under the risk factor for failure to accept responsibility and refusal of treatment. The case summary indicated that defendant believed that the victim fabricated the accusations and that defendant was removed from the sex offender treatment program for disciplinary reasons. The court properly relied on the case summary, “rather than upon the defendant’s statements to the contrary, in finding that the prosecution proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant not only failed to accept responsibility for his crime, but also that he refused treatment” (People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377, 377 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in assessing points under that risk factor, we conclude that defendant’s presumptive classification as a level three risk would not change (see People v Clark, 66 AD3d 1366 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 713 [2009]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure [1834]*1834from his presumptive risk level and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see id. at 1366-1367; People v Regan, 46 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2007]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Regan
46 A.D.3d 1434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Clark
66 A.D.3d 1366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.3d 1833, 902 N.Y.S.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-montalvo-nyappdiv-2010.