People v. Carini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carini

2017 NY Slip Op 8865, 156 A.D.3d 829, 65 N.Y.S.3d 720

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2017

Docket2017-00390

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8865 (People v. Carini) 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. Carini, 2017 NY Slip Op 8865, 156 A.D.3d 829, 65 N.Y.S.3d 720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated November 7, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168 et seq. [hereinafter SORA]), contending that the County Court should have granted his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

While a defendant’s response to sex offender treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is “exceptional” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]), here, the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (People v Velasquez, 145 AD3d 924 [2016]; People v Wallace, 144 AD3d 775, 776 [2016]; People v Figueroa, 138 AD3d 708, 709 [2016]). The defendant failed to identify any other mitigating circumstances that are of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the SORA guidelines (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

Hall, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Christopher, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated November 7, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168 et seq. [hereinafter SORA]), contending that the County Court should have granted his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

While a defendant’s response to sex offender treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is “exceptional” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]), here, the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (People v Velasquez, 145 AD3d 924 [2016]; People v Wallace, 144 AD3d 775, 776 [2016]; People v Figueroa, 138 AD3d 708, 709 [2016]). The defendant failed to identify any other mitigating circumstances that are of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the SORA guidelines (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

Hall, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8865, 156 A.D.3d 829, 65 N.Y.S.3d 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carini-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack