Court Opinion

ID: 9942759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:10:12.862438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.662231
License: Public Domain

People v Ortiz (2024 NY Slip Op 00919)

People v Ortiz

2024 NY Slip Op 00919

Decided on February 21, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 21, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAM G. FORD
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2022-00621

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vJulio Ortiz, appellant.

Stephen A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel; Fatima Pasha on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert G. Bogle, J.), dated January 12, 2022, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two predicate sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[4]). After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 80 points and designated him a level two predicate sex offender. The defendant appeals.
The defendant was properly designated a predicate sex offender based upon his previous conviction of a sex offense (see id. § 168-a[2], [7][c]).
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure based upon purported mitigating factors is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Blackman, 218 AD3d 804, 805; People v Jackson, 209 AD3d 881, 882). In any event, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court