People v. Pomavilla-Loja

2024 NY Slip Op 04581
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 25, 2024
Docket2022-02662
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 04581 (People v. Pomavilla-Loja) 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. Pomavilla-Loja, 2024 NY Slip Op 04581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Pomavilla-Loja (2024 NY Slip Op 04581)
People v Pomavilla-Loja
2024 NY Slip Op 04581
Decided on September 25, 2024
Appellate Division, Second 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 September 25, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LARA J. GENOVESI
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2022-02662

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Edison Pomavilla-Loja, appellant.


James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Meghan Garvey of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Larry J. Schwartz, J.), entered March 30, 2022, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the County Court, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender. On his appeal from that order, the defendant contends that a downward departure from his presumptive risk level is warranted. The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure based on purported mitigating factors is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing (see People v Titone, 209 AD3d 888, 889; People v Jackson, 209 AD3d 881, 882). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure is warranted.

Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, GENOVESI and WAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Titone
176 N.Y.S.3d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 04581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pomavilla-loja-nyappdiv-2024.