People v. Spring

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spring

83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 539

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 3, 2009, 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.

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure to a level two sex offender status is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Iorio, 74 AD3d 1306 [2010]; People v Rivera, 51 AD3d 646, 647 [2008]; People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 1567, 1568 [2008]). Jn any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there existed mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines that warranted a downward departure from his presumptive level three sex offender status (see People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Florio and Hall, 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 February 3, 2009, 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.

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure to a level two sex offender status is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Iorio, 74 AD3d 1306 [2010]; People v Rivera, 51 AD3d 646, 647 [2008]; People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 1567, 1568 [2008]). Jn any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there existed mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines that warranted a downward departure from his presumptive level three sex offender status (see People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.

People v. Spring, 83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

83 A.D.3d 1028 (People v. Spring) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related