People v. Nichols
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 01554 (People v. Nichols) 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.
Opinion
| People v Nichols |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 01554 |
| Decided on March 14, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on March 14, 2025
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, OGDEN, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ. (Filed Mar. 14, 2025.)
MOTION NO. (237/24) KA 23-00841.
v
STEFAN D. NICHOLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Motion for permission to file and serve a supplemental record on appeal, to vacate this Court's memorandum and order entered May 3, 2024 (People v Nichols, 227 AD3d 1443 [4th Dept 2024]), and for entry of a new memorandum and order after consideration of the supplemental record, be and the same hereby is granted to the extent that defendant is granted permission to file and serve a supplemental record on appeal containing County Court's complete decision and order dated April 11, 2023, this Court's memorandum and order entered May 3, 2024 (People v Nichols, 227 AD3d 1443 [4th Dept 2024]) is vacated, and the following memorandum and order is substituted therefor:
Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Michael L. Dollinger, J.), dated April 11, 2023. 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 ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court should have granted his request for a downward departure from risk level three to risk level two. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant adequately identified mitigating circumstances that are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines and proved their existence by a preponderance of the evidence (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]), we conclude, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that a downward departure is not warranted (see People v Burgess, 191 AD3d 1256, 1257 [4th Dept 2021]; see generally Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 01554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nichols-nyappdiv-2025.