People v. Sam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sam

67 A.D.3d 876, 888 N.Y.S.2d 434

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 9, 2008, 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.

The defendant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there existed a mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise taken into account by the guidelines (see People v Jacobs, 61 AD3d 835 [2009]; People v Serrano, 61 AD3d 946, 947 [2009]; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]). The factors relied upon by the defendant, alcohol abuse and his relationship with the victim, are expressly addressed in the SORA guidelines (see People v Perez, 61 AD3d 946 [2009]; People v Townsend, 60 AD3d 655 [2009]). The County Court appropriately designated the defendant a level two sex offender [877] and providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 9, 2008, 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.

The defendant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there existed a mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise taken into account by the guidelines (see People v Jacobs, 61 AD3d 835 [2009]; People v Serrano, 61 AD3d 946, 947 [2009]; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]). The factors relied upon by the defendant, alcohol abuse and his relationship with the victim, are expressly addressed in the SORA guidelines (see People v Perez, 61 AD3d 946 [2009]; People v Townsend, 60 AD3d 655 [2009]). The County Court appropriately designated the defendant a level two sex offender [877] and providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

People v. Sam, 67 A.D.3d 876, 888 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

67 A.D.3d 876 (People v. Sam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related