Opinion
2014–08015
05-15-2019
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith BRAITHWAITE, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Lorraine Maddalo of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Lorraine Maddalo of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Jon Firetog, J.), dated August 7, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of eight counts of rape in the first degree. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), at which the defendant sought a downward departure from his presumptive level three risk designation, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level three 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 112, 128, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; see also SORA; Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter SORA 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 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ).
Although a defendant's response to treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is exceptional (see SORA Guidelines at 17; People v. Bethel, 165 A.D.3d 712, 85 N.Y.S.3d 96 ), here, the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (see People v. Whitney, 168 A.D.3d 776, 89 N.Y.S.3d 638 ; People v. Alvin, 166 A.D.3d 1025, 86 N.Y.S.3d 752 ; People v. Bethel, 165 A.D.3d at 714, 85 N.Y.S.3d 96 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination designating the defendant a level three sex offender.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.