Opinion
2014–09781
07-17-2019
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard JOHNSON, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael J. Brennan, J.), dated September 29, 2014, 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 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 [Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) ] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" ( People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] ). If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the mitigating factor to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Champagne, 140 A.D.3d 719, 720, 31 N.Y.S.3d 218 ).
Here, the defendant did not meet his burden of identifying an appropriate mitigating factor and establishing the facts in support thereof (see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). The defendant's age at the time of the offense, his conduct while in prison, and his expected lifetime parole supervision were taken into account when assessing points, and they therefore were not "appropriate mitigating factor[s]" ( id. ; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 13, 16–17; People v. Curry, 158 A.D.3d 52, 62, 68 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; People v. Perez, 138 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 28 N.Y.S.3d 905 ). "Although ‘advanced age’ may constitute a basis for a downward departure," the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his age rendered him less likely to reoffend ( People v. Alvarez, 153 A.D.3d 645, 646, 57 N.Y.S.3d 405, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant's request for a downward departure and designating him a level three sex offender.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.