People v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Otero

100 A.D.3d 411, 952 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 411 (People v. Otero) 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. Otero, 100 A.D.3d 411, 952 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s discretionary upward departure to level three. Initially, we note that defendant’s point score was 105, which is nearly enough for a level three adjudication. The court properly determined that the risk assessment instrument did not adequately take into account aggravating factors including the seriousness of the underlying sex crime (see e.g. People v Schlau, 60 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). These aggravating factors outweighed any possible mitigating factors cited by defendant. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s discretionary upward departure to level three. Initially, we note that defendant’s point score was 105, which is nearly enough for a level three adjudication. The court properly determined that the risk assessment instrument did not adequately take into account aggravating factors including the seriousness of the underlying sex crime (see e.g. People v Schlau, 60 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). These aggravating factors outweighed any possible mitigating factors cited by defendant. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 411, 952 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-otero-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack