From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Linton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 17, 2012
94 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-17

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael LINTON, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli and Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Anthea Bruffee of counsel; Jaclyn Goodman on the brief), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli and Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Anthea Bruffee of counsel; Jaclyn Goodman on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), dated November 17, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender and a sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level, since the defendant failed to establish a ground for a downward departure by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006 ed.]; People v. Fernandez, 91 A.D.3d 737, 936 N.Y.S.2d 556; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 129–130, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 803, 2012 WL 43762).

Although a defendant in a SORA proceeding may be entitled to the appointment of an expert upon a court's finding that expert services are necessary ( see County Law § 722–c), the Supreme Court here did not err in declining the defendant's request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to assist him in seeking a downward departure. The defendant did not establish that appointment of an expert was necessary. Moreover, the denial of the defendant's request did not violate his right to due process of law ( cf. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 616, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341).

BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Linton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 17, 2012
94 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Linton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael LINTON, appellant.

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

Date published: Apr 17, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
942 N.Y.S.2d 371
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2851

Citing Cases

People v. Medina

The Supreme Court did not err in declining the defendant's request, made at the time of the SORA hearing, for…

People v. Mallayev

Contrary to the defendant's contention, since he did not demonstrate the necessity for the appointment of an…