People v. Rodriguez

78 A.D.3d 1140, 911 N.Y.S.2d 645
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), dated April 28, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

[1141]*1141The Supreme Court failed to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its risk assessment determination was made, as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3). However, this Court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law where, as here, the record is sufficient to do so (see People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive level three sex offender status as shown on the risk assessment instrument. The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a special circumstance warranting such a departure (see People v McKee, 66 AD3d 854 [2009]; People v Cooke, 57 AD3d 750 [2008]; People v Taylor, 47 AD3d 907 [2008]; People v Richardson, 47 AD3d 905 [2008]; People v Adams, 44 AD3d 1020 [2007]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 78 A.D.3d 1140, 911 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

78 A.D.3d 1140 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bogert
91 A.D.3d 925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)