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

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

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

Pincite

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]*877and 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]*877and providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 876, 888 N.Y.S.2d 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sam-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack