Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ivan Maestre, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sexually violent offender adjudication.
The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see People v. Cintron, 12 NY3d 60, 70, cert denied sub nom. Knox v. New York, 558 U.S. 1011 [2009]; People v. Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008] ). Defendant did not demonstrate any mitigating factors, not already taken into account in the risk assessment instrument, that would warrant a downward departure, given the seriousness of the underlying conduct committed against a child. While conceding that the court properly assessed points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined (see People v. Perez, 104 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; People v. Salley, 67 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 703 [2010] ), defendant argues that the court should have exercised its discretion to assess fewer than 20 points. However, defendant would have remained a level three offender even if the court had not assessed any points under that factor. In any event, the assessment of 20 points was appropriate.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1267 2
Decided: June 05, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)