People v. William

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. William

123 A.D.3d 636, 999 N.Y.S.2d 73

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13861 4312/09

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 636 (People v. William) 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. William, 123 A.D.3d 636, 999 N.Y.S.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender and a predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendant expressly declined to contest his level three adjudication, his present claim that his adjudication should be reduced to level two is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits, because defendant has not advanced any lawful basis for such relief. On appeal, defendant does not dispute that the court properly applied the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction, which resulted in a level three adjudication independent of any point assessments, and he does not seek a discretionary downward departure. Moreover, he was previously adjudicated a level three sex offender as a result of *637 the prior conviction that forms the basis of the presumptive override.

In light of the foregoing, we find no reason to address defendant’s challenges to particular point assessments (see People v Pratt, 121 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2014]; People v Lucas, 118 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]). In any event, we find that the contested points were properly assessed.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender and a predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendant expressly declined to contest his level three adjudication, his present claim that his adjudication should be reduced to level two is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits, because defendant has not advanced any lawful basis for such relief. On appeal, defendant does not dispute that the court properly applied the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction, which resulted in a level three adjudication independent of any point assessments, and he does not seek a discretionary downward departure. Moreover, he was previously adjudicated a level three sex offender as a result of *637 the prior conviction that forms the basis of the presumptive override.

In light of the foregoing, we find no reason to address defendant’s challenges to particular point assessments (see People v Pratt, 121 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2014]; People v Lucas, 118 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]). In any event, we find that the contested points were properly assessed.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 636, 999 N.Y.S.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-william-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack