People v. Carroll, 102 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Carroll, 102 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Woods (nyappdiv, 2015-02-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Woods
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
People v Medina, 118 AD3d 764 [2014]; People v Smith, 103 AD3d 616, 617 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Medina
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In any event, the assessment of those 20 points was proper, since the uncontroverted evidence in the record established that the defendant developed a relationship with the victim for the purpose of victimizing her (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 12 [2006]; People v Smith, 103 AD3d 616, 617 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Medina
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In any event, the assessment of those 20 points was proper, since the uncontroverted evidence in the record established that the defendant developed a relationship with the victim for the purpose of victimizing her (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 12 [2006]; People v Smith, 103 AD3d 616, 617 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Worrell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, to the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation, upon examining all of the relevant circumstances, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 972, 973 [2013]; People v Martinez-Guzman, 109 AD3d at 463 ; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Worrell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, to the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation, upon examining all of the relevant circumstances, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 972, 973 [2013]; People v Martinez-Guzman, 109 AD3d at 463 ; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Manson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation (see People v Eaton, 105 AD3d 722, 723 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Tineo-Morales, 101 AD3d 839 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Manson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation (see People v Eaton, 105 AD3d 722, 723 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Tineo-Morales, 101 AD3d 839 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Eaton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Breton, 84 AD3d at 907-908), upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 127-128 [2011]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d at 627).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Eaton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Breton, 84 AD3d at 907-908), upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 127-128 [2011]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d at 627).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Fazio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Children depicted in pornographic images may be found to constitute multiple separate victims for the purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (see People v Poole, 90 AD3d 1550, 1550 [2011]; see also People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 420 [2008]). * Defendant did not dispute that three or more children were depicted in the images and videos he possessed and, under the circumstances of this case, clear and convincing evidence supports County Court’s assessment of 30 additional points under risk factor 3 (see People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Poole, 90 AD3d at 1550 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Fazio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Children depicted in pornographic images may be found to constitute multiple separate victims for the purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (see People v Poole, 90 AD3d 1550, 1550 [2011]; see also People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 420 [2008]). * Defendant did not dispute that three or more children were depicted in the images and videos he possessed and, under the circumstances of this case, clear and convincing evidence supports County Court’s assessment of 30 additional points under risk factor 3 (see People v Carroll, 102 AD3d 848, 849 [2013]; People v Poole, 90 AD3d at 1550 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Peter Carroll
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 2013.
102 A.D.3d 848
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

[*849] Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant challenges his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) following his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on a charge of possession of child pornography.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed him 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 419-421 [2008]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d 627 [2011]; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d 906, 907 [2011]). Further, based on the defendant’s own statements regarding his use of alcohol, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse) (see People v Gulley, 99 AD3d 979 [2012]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Arnold, 35 AD3d 827 [2006]).

To the extent that the defendant established facts that might warrant a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at 907-908), upon examining all circumstances relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 127-128 [2011]; People v Harding, 87 AD3d at 627; People v Bretan, 84 AD3d at 907-908; People v Stella, 71 AD3d 970 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.