Court Opinion

ID: 9397480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 16:07:39.419372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.081361
License: Public Domain

People v Battiste (2023 NY Slip Op 02834)

People v Battiste

2023 NY Slip Op 02834

Decided on May 25, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 25, 2023

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ. 

Ind No. 51/77 Appeal No. 326 Case No. 2019-1223 

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vJonathan Battiste, Defendant-Appellant.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Richard Joselson of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), entered on or about July 13, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Within a short period of time, defendant raped four women who were strangers to him and murdered a 15-year-old girl during an attempted rape. Although these crimes occurred many years ago, and defendant demonstrated outstanding academic achievement while in prison, the mitigating factors cited by defendant are outweighed by the unusual egregiousness of these repeated crimes, which demonstrates a risk that reoffense would cause serious harm (see People v Roldan, 140 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). Furthermore, defendant was incarcerated for almost the entire time between his commission of these crimes and his sex offender classification proceeding, and the brief time defendant spent in the community provided little information about his risk of reoffense. Additionally, defendant has not shown that his particular risk of reoffense was mitigated by his age (see People v Rodriguez, 145 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 916 [2017]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 25, 2023