From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marion

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 23, 2011
90 A.D.3d 1570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-23

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William C. MARION, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), dated September 25, 2009. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. David M. Palmiere, Rochester, for defendant-appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of Counsel), for respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), dated September 25, 2009. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. David M. Palmiere, Rochester, for defendant-appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of Counsel), for respondent.

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.). The total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) resulted in the presumptive classification of defendant as a level three risk but, as defendant correctly notes, the Board recommended a downward departure to level two. “County Court, however, was not bound by the Board's recommendation and, in the proper exercise of its discretion, the court determined defendant's risk level based upon the record before it” ( People v. Woodard, 63 A.D.3d 1655, 1656, 880 N.Y.S.2d 450, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 706, 887 N.Y.S.2d 3, 915 N.E.2d 1181; see People v. Charache, 32 A.D.3d 1345, 821 N.Y.S.2d 728, affd. 9 N.Y.3d 829, 841 N.Y.S.2d 223, 873 N.E.2d 267). “The record supports the court's determination that there was no ‘mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines,’ and thus that a departure from the presumptive risk level was not warranted” ( Charache, 32 A.D.3d 1345, 821 N.Y.S.2d 728).

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

SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Marion

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 23, 2011
90 A.D.3d 1570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Marion

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William C. MARION…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 1570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
934 N.Y.S.2d 912
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9470