Court Opinion

ID: 9367759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 20:06:01.291479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.106686
License: Public Domain

People v Evanson (2023 NY Slip Op 00449)

People v Evanson

2023 NY Slip Op 00449

Decided on February 1, 2023

Appellate Division, Second 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 on February 1, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

BETSY BARROS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2021-08324

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vPhilip M. Evanson, appellant. Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.

Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Christopher Turk of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Chris Ann Kelley, J.), dated March 9, 2021, 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 this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court assessed the defendant 95 points on the risk assessment instrument, denied his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, and designated him a level two sex offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of his application for a downward departure.
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 Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). 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 NY3d at 861; People v Champagne, 140 AD3d 719, 720).
Here, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his application for a downward departure as the purported mitigating factors that he identified were adequately taken into account by the Guidelines and did not establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community to warrant a downward departure (see People v Rocano-Quintuna, 149 AD3d 1114; People v Perez, 138 AD3d 1081). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure and designated him a level two sex offender.
BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, ZAYAS and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court