Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patrick Rose, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-01-18
Citations: 146 A.D.3d 911
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Rose, Appellant.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Rose, Appellant.
[44 NYS3d 763]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated December 2, 2013, 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] 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]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). 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 NY3d at 861; see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 128).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure (see People v Vizcarra, 138 AD3d 815 [2016]; People v Houston, 122 AD3d 915 [2014]). The mitigating factors identified by the defendant were either adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act Guidelines or did not warrant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level (see People v Roldan, 140 AD3d 411 [2016]; People v Ibarra, 137 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2016]).
Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.