People v. Paterno

203 A.D.3d 853

160 N.Y.S.3d 894 (Mem)

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,

v.Michael PATERNO, appellant.

2020–00606

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

Submitted—February 10, 2022

March 9, 2022

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Genevieve M. Cahill of counsel), for appellant.

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred Croce of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), dated November 25, 2019, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is designated a level two sex offender.

The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the third degree. Following a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), the County Court determined that the defendant was presumptively a level two sex offender and denied the defendant's request for a downward departure. However, the court determined, upon the People's application, that an upward departure was warranted, and thus designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appeals.

A party seeking a departure from the presumptive SORA risk level has the initial burden of (1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate aggravating or mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a higher or lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community, respectively, and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 123–124, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; see also SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). The People are required to prove the facts in support of an upward departure by clear and convincing evidence, whereas a defendant seeking a downward departure must prove the supporting facts by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 862, 864, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ). If a party meets its initial burden, "the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism" ( id. at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ).

The defendant's contention that the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2, for sexual contact with the victim, resulted in an over assessment of his risk level because the victim's lack of consent was due only to his inability to consent by virtue of his age, is unpreserved for appellate...