RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v

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

DecidedMay 3, 2013

DocketKA 12-00251

StatusPublished

This text of RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v (RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v) 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

RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

436 KA 12-00251 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY RAWLINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered December 16, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). To the extent that defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly assessed 15 points for his history of drug or alcohol abuse as recommended in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, we reject that contention (see People v Zimmerman, 101 AD3d 1677, 1678). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in assessing 15 points with respect to that risk factor, we note that defendant would nevertheless have been assessed 110 points under the RAI, which is still a presumptive level three risk. Contrary to his further contention, we conclude that defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances to warrant such a departure (see People v Marks, 31 AD3d 1142, 1143, lv denied 7 NY3d 715; People v McDaniel, 27 AD3d 1158, 1159, lv denied 7 NY3d 703).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

436 KA 12-00251 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY RAWLINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered December 16, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). To the extent that defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly assessed 15 points for his history of drug or alcohol abuse as recommended in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, we reject that contention (see People v Zimmerman, 101 AD3d 1677, 1678). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in assessing 15 points with respect to that risk factor, we note that defendant would nevertheless have been assessed 110 points under the RAI, which is still a presumptive level three risk. Contrary to his further contention, we conclude that defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances to warrant such a departure (see People v Marks, 31 AD3d 1142, 1143, lv denied 7 NY3d 715; People v McDaniel, 27 AD3d 1158, 1159, lv denied 7 NY3d 703).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RAWLINSON, GREGORY, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rawlinson-gregory-people-v-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack