People v. White

2016 NY Slip Op 7633, 144 A.D.3d 881, 40 N.Y.S.3d 786
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 2016·No. 2012-10864·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated November 19, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

A court determining a defendant’s risk level under the Sex *882 Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), is not permitted to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level unless the defendant first identifies and proves by a preponderance of the evidence the facts in support of “a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” (People v Lathan, 129 AD3d 686, 686-687 [2015]; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). Here, the defendant failed to prove the existence of such a mitigating factor (see People v Jordan, 142 AD3d 596, 596 [2016]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see id.).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

People v. White, 2016 NY Slip Op 7633, 144 A.D.3d 881, 40 N.Y.S.3d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

2016 NY Slip Op 7633 (People v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Anderson
2017 NY Slip Op 4478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Moultrie
2017 NY Slip Op 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. White
28 N.Y.3d 913 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)