You are here: / / Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Should Not Have Been Considered in SORA...
,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Should Not Have Been Considered in SORA Risk Assessment—Criteria for an Upward Departure Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been considered in determining the defendant’s risk level. The court explained the proper procedure for considering an upward departure: … “[T]he County Court upwardly departed without following the required three analytical steps of determining, first, whether an aggravating factor exists as a matter of law, second, whether the People have adduced clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support of that aggravating factor, and third, whether, in the court’s discretion, the totality of the circumstances warrant the upward departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism …”. People v Ruland,  2015 NY Slip Op 04464, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

You might also like
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Jury Be Charged with an Affirmative Defense to Robbery First (Weapon Was Not Capable of Being Discharged) Constituted Ineffective Assistance
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained
LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AS ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS AND SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR BRINGING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT DEFENDANT DOCTORS DID NOT DEPART FROM GOOD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Late Motion for Judicial Approval of a Settlement Properly Denied—Delay In Seeking Approval Was Due to Plaintiff’s Own Fault or Neglect

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone... Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution...