Opinion
2015-02611.
04-12-2017
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Corey NIEVES, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel; Jacob Hansen on the brief), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Alexander Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel; Jacob Hansen on the brief), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Alexander Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mattei, J.), dated March 20, 2015, 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.
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: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary; hereinafter 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 ; People v. Wallace, 144 A.D.3d 775, 40 N.Y.S.3d 561 ). If the defendant "surmounts the first two steps, 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 ; see People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).
Here, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his request for a downward departure. The mitigating circumstances identified by the defendant either were adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, or were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Velasquez, 145 A.D.3d 924, 42 N.Y.S.3d 845 ; People v. Rossano, 140 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 35 N.Y.S.3d 364 ; People v. Sanchez, 138 A.D.3d 946, 947, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621 ; People v. Santiago, 137 A.D.3d 762, 764, 26 N.Y.S.3d 339 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure.