From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

May 25, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 25, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ.


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

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the defendant's presumptive risk level, inasmuch as there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record of a 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 Kraus, 66 AD3d 854; People v Jacobs, 61 AD3d 835, 836; People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520; People v Agard, 35 AD3d 568).


Summaries of

People v. Burch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Burch

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TYRONE BURCH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 25, 2010

Citations

73 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
900 N.Y.S.2d 915

Citing Cases

People v. McFarland

y result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will the exception not the rule”);…

People v. McFarland

result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will the exception not the rule");…