Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Florencio Pavia, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 960
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Florencio Pavia, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 960–960

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Florencio Pavia, Appellant.
[993 NYS2d 782]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Meyer J.), dated August 15, 2012, 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.
In determining a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), "[a] downward departure from a sex offender's presumptive risk level generally is only warranted where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines" (People v Watson, 95 AD3d 978, 979 [2012]; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). A defendant seeking a downward departure 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 Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]).
Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to show that his expected deportation was, "as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor" (id.; see People v Romero, 113 AD3d 605 [2014]; People v Kachatov, 106 AD3d 973, 973 [2013]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level.
Mastro, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.