People v. Tamares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tamares

123 A.D.3d 632, 997 N.Y.S.2d 316

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13850 2041/11

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 632 (People v. Tamares) 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. Tamares, 123 A.D.3d 632, 997 N.Y.S.2d 316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2012, 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.

Defendant’s challenge to an assessment of 15 points under the risk factor for alcohol abuse is unpreserved, as well as being unsupported by a sufficient factual record, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, even without these points, defendant remains a level two offender.

Regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score is 95 or 80, we find no basis for a discretionary downward departure. The underlying sexual offenses were committed against young children. Defendant’s good disciplinary record while incarcerated was adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]), and his other arguments in support of a downward departure are unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2012, 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.

Defendant’s challenge to an assessment of 15 points under the risk factor for alcohol abuse is unpreserved, as well as being unsupported by a sufficient factual record, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, even without these points, defendant remains a level two offender.

Regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score is 95 or 80, we find no basis for a discretionary downward departure. The underlying sexual offenses were committed against young children. Defendant’s good disciplinary record while incarcerated was adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]), and his other arguments in support of a downward departure are unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 632, 997 N.Y.S.2d 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tamares-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack