Legal Opinion
People v. Bowden
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 25, 2011PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court’s designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender, based upon the aggregation of points under applicable risk factors on the risk assessment instrument, was *973supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-d [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010]; People v Crum, 81 AD3d 619 [2011]; People v King, 80 AD3d 681 [2011]).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his application for a downward departure from risk level two to risk level one. “[A] court may not [downwardly] depart from the presumptive risk level unless…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. WyattAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. PettigrewNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- People v. VegaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. CrumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. SantiagoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. WatsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. MartinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. SantanaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.