People v. Torres

51 A.D.3d 531, 858 N.Y.S.2d 146
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Torres. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 A.D.3d 732

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s claim that he does not qualify as a sex offender is similar to the claim made by the defendant in People v Cintron (46 AD3d 353 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 804 [2008]). For the reasons stated in Cintron, we find this claim to be both unpreserved and without merit (see also People v Windham, 37 AD3d 571 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 801 [2008]). To the extent that defendant is asserting that it is unconstitutional to determine his qualification as a sex offender on the basis of an administrative computation of his aggregate sentence made in accordance [532]*532with Penal Law § 70.30, we likewise find that claim to be unpreserved and meritless.

Defendant did not establish any special circumstances warranting a downward departure from his risk level (see People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Catterson, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

People v. Torres, 51 A.D.3d 531, 858 N.Y.S.2d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

51 A.D.3d 531 (People v. Torres) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Windham
886 N.E.2d 179 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
People v. Guaman
8 A.D.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Cintron
46 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)