People v. Pittman

113 A.D.3d 497, 978 N.Y.2d 840
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 2014·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant defendant a downward departure to level one (see People v Cintron, 12 NY3d 60, 70 [2009], cert denied 558 US 1011 [2009]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 568 n 2 [2009]). The risk assessment instrument adequately took into account the absence of a prior sex crime and defendant’s prison record. Further, neither defendant’s age (late 40s) nor any of the other factors he relied on warranted a downward departure in light of the seriousness of his offense against two very young children (see e.g. People v Thomas, 105 AD3d 640 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 863 [2013]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

People v. Pittman, 113 A.D.3d 497, 978 N.Y.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

113 A.D.3d 497 (People v. Pittman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Coleman
122 A.D.3d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)