People v. Rodriguez
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Cisneros-Esteban (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Fuentes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Broadus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Broadus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Gonzalez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
— Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cyrulnik, J.), dated February 1, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed points under risk factors 9 and 10 based upon his prior youth *881 ful offender adjudication, in violation of CPL 720.35 (2), is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Francis, 137 AD3d 91 [2d Dept 2016]).
The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level three risk assessment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Estrella, 90 AD3d 879 [2011]; People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171 [2011]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112 [2011]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ortiz, 114 AD3d 740 [2014]; People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171 [2011]).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.