From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Maus

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 11, 2021
195 A.D.3d 1438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

495 KA 19-01651

06-11-2021

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard G. MAUS, II, Defendant-Appellant.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER ( TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER ( NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER ( TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER ( NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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 two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( Correction Law § 168 et seq. ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to grant a downward departure from his presumptive classification as a level two risk based upon certain mitigating circumstances not adequately taken into account by the guidelines, including his college education and consistent employment history. Defendant, however, failed to request a downward departure based on those alleged mitigating circumstances and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see People v. Johnson , 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421-422, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 [2008] ; see generally People v. Puff , 151 A.D.3d 1965, 1966, 57 N.Y.S.3d 864 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 904, 2017 WL 4782708 [2017] ; People v. Ratcliff , 53 A.D.3d 1110, 1110, 862 N.Y.S.2d 686 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 708, 868 N.Y.S.2d 600, 897 N.E.2d 1084 [2008] ). At the hearing, defendant requested a downward departure based on his lack of a criminal history, lack of substance abuse, participation in a treatment program, and acceptance of responsibility for his actions. Inasmuch as those alleged mitigating factors or circumstances are adequately taken into account by the guidelines, they are improperly asserted as mitigating factors ( see People v. Gerros , 175 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 105 N.Y.S.3d 693 [4th Dept. 2019] ; People v. Reber , 145 A.D.3d 1627, 1627-1628, 43 N.Y.S.3d 925 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 906, 2017 WL 1719220 [2017] ; see generally People v. Gillotti , 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ).


Summaries of

People v. Maus

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 11, 2021
195 A.D.3d 1438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

People v. Maus

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard G. MAUS, II…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 11, 2021

Citations

195 A.D.3d 1438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
195 A.D.3d 1438

Citing Cases

People v. Harris

On the merits, we conclude that many of the purported mitigating circumstances alleged by defendant,…

People v. Harris

On the merits, we conclude that many of the purported mitigating circumstances alleged by defendant,…