People v. Bogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bogan

115 A.D.3d 1359, 982 N.Y.S.2d 682

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 2014·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), entered September 17, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure to risk level two. We reject that contention. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed]). There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance to warrant an upward or downward departure” (People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545, 545 [2004]; see People v Mc[1360] Daniel, 27 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]).

Here, the reasons proffered by defendant in support of his request for a downward departure — the fact that he participated in various programs offered to him in prison, thus making him a “changed man,” and his assertion that he is not a “serial rapist” — were already taken into account by the guidelines, as reflected by the scoring on the risk assessment instrument, and thus may not provide the basis for a downward departure (see People v Smith, 108 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 856 [2013]; People v Kotzen, 100 AD3d 1162, 1162-1163 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 860 [2013]). Defendant thus “failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure” (People v Marks, 31 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]; see People v Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060, 1060 [2005]).

Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), entered September 17, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure to risk level two. We reject that contention. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed]). There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance to warrant an upward or downward departure” (People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545, 545 [2004]; see People v Mc[1360] Daniel, 27 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]).

Here, the reasons proffered by defendant in support of his request for a downward departure — the fact that he participated in various programs offered to him in prison, thus making him a “changed man,” and his assertion that he is not a “serial rapist” — were already taken into account by the guidelines, as reflected by the scoring on the risk assessment instrument, and thus may not provide the basis for a downward departure (see People v Smith, 108 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 856 [2013]; People v Kotzen, 100 AD3d 1162, 1162-1163 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 860 [2013]). Defendant thus “failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure” (People v Marks, 31 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]; see People v Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060, 1060 [2005]).

Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.

People v. Bogan, 115 A.D.3d 1359, 982 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

115 A.D.3d 1359 (People v. Bogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related