People v. Ciudadreal

125 A.D.3d 950, 1 N.Y.S.3d 858
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 25, 2015
Docket2014-00103
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 950 (People v. Ciudadreal) 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. Ciudadreal, 125 A.D.3d 950, 1 N.Y.S.3d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Foley, J.), dated November 14, 2013, 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.

In the determination of a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), “[a] downward departure from a sex offender’s presumptive risk level generally is only warranted where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” (People v Watson, 95 AD3d 978, 979 [2012]; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). A defendant seeking a downward *951 departure 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 Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” (.People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, neither the fact that he is more than 50 years of age nor his recent deportation to El Salvador was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” (id. at 128; see People v Kachatov, 106 AD3d 973, 973 [2013]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 704 [2012]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Gonzalez
2021 NY Slip Op 03340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Morrison
2017 NY Slip Op 8867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Charles
2017 NY Slip Op 5757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Garcia
2016 NY Slip Op 7169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Jordan
142 A.D.3d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Rubi
132 A.D.3d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Lathan
129 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.3d 950, 1 N.Y.S.3d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ciudadreal-nyappdiv-2015.