Opinion
No. 2016-08750
11-02-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Edwin Rolon, appellant.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Kellyann Ryan of counsel), for respondent.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Kellyann Ryan of counsel), for respondent.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J. ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael J. Brennan, J.), dated August 3, 2016, 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 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; see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). 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).
Here, the defendant failed to establish that his response to sex offender treatment and efforts at rehabilitation were of such a degree as to constitute a legitimate mitigating factor (see People v Hawthorne, 158 A.D.3d 651, 654; People v Santiago, 137 A.D.3d 762, 764). Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that he received a low-risk score on an alternate risk assessment instrument was insufficient to warrant a downward departure (see People v Curry, 158 A.D.3d 52, 61).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure.
LASALLE, P.J., MILLER, GENOVESI and WAN, JJ., concur.