People v. Quintana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quintana

29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 308 (People v. Quintana) 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. Quintana, 29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J), entered on or about April 19, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In adjudicating defendant a level two sex offender, the court properly assessed points under the “forcible compulsion” and “deviate sexual intercourse” categories of the Risk Assessment Guidelines. This determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The grand jury minutes were “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and constituted a proper basis for the court’s findings (see People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]). We perceive no basis for a discretionary downward departure (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J), entered on or about April 19, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In adjudicating defendant a level two sex offender, the court properly assessed points under the “forcible compulsion” and “deviate sexual intercourse” categories of the Risk Assessment Guidelines. This determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The grand jury minutes were “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and constituted a proper basis for the court’s findings (see People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]). We perceive no basis for a discretionary downward departure (see People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 308, 813 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quintana-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack