From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McKinney

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 28, 2018
158 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2016–06811

02-28-2018

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Darrell MCKINNEY, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Kenneth Blake of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Kenneth Blake of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alan Marrus, J.), dated April 14, 2016, 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 his or her presumptive risk level must identify mitigating circumstances that are of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006) (hereinafter the SORA Guidelines) and must prove the existence of those circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 864, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). If the defendant satisfies that burden, "the law permits a departure, but the court still has discretion to refuse to depart or to grant a departure" ( People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ).

Here, the alleged mitigating circumstances identified by the defendant either were adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines, or were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Nieves, 149 A.D.3d 881, 882, 50 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; People v. Sanchez, 138 A.D.3d 946, 947, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure from his presumptive designation as a level three sex offender.

RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. McKinney

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 28, 2018
158 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

People v. McKinney

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Darrell MCKINNEY, appellant.

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

Date published: Feb 28, 2018

Citations

158 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
68 N.Y.S.3d 908
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 1345

Citing Cases

People v. Johnson

( People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994…

People v. Johnson

ender Registration Act; hereinafter SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its…