People v. Santana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santana

104 A.D.3d 660, 960 N.Y.S.2d 321

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2013·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated March 26, 2012, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly determined that he was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Thus, he was properly designated a level three sex offender (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128-129 [2011]; People v Bowden, 88 AD3d 972, 973 [2011]; People v Mondo, 88 AD3d 676 [2011]; People v Livingston, 87 AD3d 628 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, 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 March 26, 2012, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly determined that he was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. Thus, he was properly designated a level three sex offender (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128-129 [2011]; People v Bowden, 88 AD3d 972, 973 [2011]; People v Mondo, 88 AD3d 676 [2011]; People v Livingston, 87 AD3d 628 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Santana, 104 A.D.3d 660, 960 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

104 A.D.3d 660 (People v. Santana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related