People v. Stephens

86 A.D.3d 931, 926 N.Y.2d 338
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Stephens. Read the opinion of the Court — 108 A.D.3d 414

Opinion

Memorandum:

On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to determine that he was entitled to a downward departure to a level two risk. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that he requested such a departure (see People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110 [2008], Iv denied 11 NY3d 708 [932]*932[2008]). In any event, we conclude that “defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” (People v McDaniel, 27 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2006], Iv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see People v Fredendall, 83 AD3d 1545 [2011]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Garni, Green and Martoche, JJ.

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

People v. Stephens, 86 A.D.3d 931, 926 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

86 A.D.3d 931 (People v. Stephens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. McDaniel
27 A.D.3d 1158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Ratcliff
53 A.D.3d 1110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Fredendall
83 A.D.3d 1545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)