From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jamison

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2016
145 A.D.3d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-21-2016

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Larry JAMISON, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated December 2, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant challenges the assessment of 10 points for allegedly unsatisfactory behavior while confined. However, he acknowledges that even if this argument were sustained, his total points assessment would be 135 points, rendering him presumptively a level three sex offender (see People v. Howell, 82 A.D.3d 857, 918 N.Y.S.2d 364 ).

The defendant also contends that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level based upon his age. The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant a downward departure only where the defendant identifies a mitigating circumstance of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument and establishes its existence by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861–862, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level based upon his age (see People v. Vegh, 134 A.D.3d 1084, 21 N.Y.S.3d 719 ; People v. Torres, 124 A.D.3d 744, 746, 998 N.Y.S.2d 464 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level three sex offender.

HALL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jamison

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2016
145 A.D.3d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Jamison

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Larry JAMISON, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 21, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
42 N.Y.S.3d 836
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8550