People v. Singleton

2021 NY Slip Op 00096
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 2021
DocketInd No. 734/08 Appeal No. 12811 Case No. 2015-2424
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 00096 (People v. Singleton) 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. Singleton, 2021 NY Slip Op 00096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

People v Singleton (2021 NY Slip Op 00096)
People v Singleton
2021 NY Slip Op 00096
Decided on January 07, 2021
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 07, 2021
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Moulton, González, Scarpulla, JJ.

Ind No. 734/08 Appeal No. 12811 Case No. 2015-2424

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Warren Singleton, Defendant-Appellant.


Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jose David Rodriguez Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily A. Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Defendant does not dispute that his prior second-degree robbery subjected him to a 30-point assessment for having committed a violent felony as defined by statute. Instead, he argues that a downward departure is warranted because the conviction was based on only his being "aided by another" (Penal Law § 160.10[1]), and that the lack of actual violence involved is a mitigating factor not adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument. However, that type of robbery is inherently violent, because it necessarily involves "forcible stealing" (Penal Law § 160.00), and the participation of more than one robber poses "a threat of additional violence" (People v Dennis, 146 AD2d 708, 708 [2d Dept 1989], affd 75 NY2d 821 [1990]; see also People v Sanchez, 13 NY3d 554, 565 [2009]). In any event, this alleged mitigating factor, taken together with the other mitigating factors cited by defendant, are outweighed by several aggravating factors.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 7, 2021



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

Related

People v. Singleton
2021 NY Slip Op 00096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 00096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singleton-nyappdiv-2021.