People v. Wood

112 A.D.3d 602, 975 N.Y.S.2d 910
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 2013·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan J.), dated April 4, 2012, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level two sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where “there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 119 [2011]; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure and, thus, properly designated him as a level two sex offender (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 131; People v Mondo, 88 AD3d 676 [2011]; People v Padro, 84 AD3d 1046 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Wood, 112 A.D.3d 602, 975 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

112 A.D.3d 602 (People v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hamilton
138 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Nunez
121 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Arias
119 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Wortham
119 A.D.3d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)