People v. Santos

174 A.D.3d 658

102 N.Y.S.3d 272

PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent,

v.Juan SANTOS, Appellant.

2017–12919

Ind.No. 5873/12

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

Submitted—April 23, 2019

July 10, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.

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

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), at which the defendant sought a downward departure from his presumptive level two sex offender designation, the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 90 points, denied his application for a downward departure, and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.

In establishing a sex offender's appropriate risk level assessment pursuant to SORA (see Correction Law art 6–C), the People bear "the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" ( Correction Law § 168–n[3] ; see People v. Wyatt , 89 A.D.3d 112, 117–118, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). As the People correctly concede, they failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had a history of alcohol abuse. However, after deducting the 15 points assessed for a history of alcohol abuse from his score of 90 points, the defendant is still presumptively a level two sex offender.

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 [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 at 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; People v. Gillotti , 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ). 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 demonstrate grounds for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. The record indicates that his response to sex offender treatment was not exceptional, as the defendant "still needs work to develop a realistic relapse treatment plan." Thus he did not establish an exceptional treatment response that would warrant a downward departure from the presumptive risk assessment (see People v. Eisenberg , 170 A.D.3d 1208, 94 N.Y.S.3d 863 ; People v. Whitney , 168 A.D.3d 776, 89 N.Y.S.3d 638 ; People v. Santiago , 137 A.D.3d 762, 764, 26 N.Y.S.3d 339 ; People v. Dyson , 130 A.D.3d 600, 600–601, 10 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Watson , 95 A.D.3d 978, 979, 944 N.Y.S.2d 584 ).

Further, the evidence of ...