People v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrett

123 A.D.3d 783, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 2014

Docket2013-03608

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 783 (People v. Barrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barrett, 123 A.D.3d 783, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated March 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender and predicate sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

A court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) must “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Here, the Supreme Court failed to adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, since the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, remittal is not required (see People v Johnson, 118 AD3d 684 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]).

“A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence’ ” (People v Wortham, 119 AD3d 666, 666 [2014], quoting People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). *784 Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he failed to establish that his expected deportation was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” (People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 128; see People v Pavia, 121 AD3d 960 [2014]; People v Romero, 113 AD3d 605 [2014]; People v Kachatov, 106 AD3d 973, 973 [2013]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level.

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated March 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender and predicate sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

A court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) must “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Here, the Supreme Court failed to adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, since the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, remittal is not required (see People v Johnson, 118 AD3d 684 [2014]; People v Brown, 116 AD3d 1017 [2014]).

“A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence’ ” (People v Wortham, 119 AD3d 666, 666 [2014], quoting People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). *784 Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he failed to establish that his expected deportation was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” (People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 128; see People v Pavia, 121 AD3d 960 [2014]; People v Romero, 113 AD3d 605 [2014]; People v Kachatov, 106 AD3d 973, 973 [2013]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level.

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 783, 996 N.Y.S.2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrett-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack