People v Copeland

Annotate this Case
People v Copeland 2010 NY Slip Op 09112 [79 AD3d 716] December 7, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Mark Copeland, Appellant.

—[*1]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated September 6, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him as a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's designation of him as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor two and 20 points under risk factor four (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 9-10 [2006]). The victim's sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009]), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010]; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010]).

Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor "of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charache, 9 NY3d 829, 830 [2007]; People v McElhearn, 56 AD3d 978, 979 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.