From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rosales

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 18, 2015
133 A.D.3d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

11-18-2015

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Oscar ROSALES, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Shane Tela of counsel), for appellant. Daniel L. Master, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Shane Tela of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel L. Master, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated December 14, 2012, 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 (hereinafter 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).

Here, the defendant failed to meet this burden with respect to any of the factors alleged by him at the SORA hearing (see People v. Correnti, 126 A.D.3d 681, 2 N.Y.S.3d 375). His contention that there was an over-assessment of points under risk factor 2 because the victim's lack of consent was due only to her inability to consent by virtue of her age is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise this factor at the SORA hearing (see People v. Fernandez, 91 A.D.3d 737, 738, 936 N.Y.S.2d 556). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure from his presumptive level two designation (see People v. Houston, 122 A.D.3d 915, 997 N.Y.S.2d 480).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rosales

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 18, 2015
133 A.D.3d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Rosales

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Oscar ROSALES, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 18, 2015

Citations

133 A.D.3d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 8398
19 N.Y.S.3d 176

Citing Cases

People v. Uphael

and convincing evidence, as the record supports the inference that his relationship with the complainant was…

People v. Taylor

Order (Marc J. Whiten, J.), entered December 21, 2009, modified on the law by vacating the determination that…