People v. Aldarondo

20 Citing cases

  1. People v. Coleman

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11, as the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had a history of substance abuse (see People v Bullock, 217 A.D.3d 886, 887; People v Oliver, 215 A.D.3d 772, 773). The defendant received four disciplinary sanctions for drug use and was referred to an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while he was incarcerated (see People v Bullock, 217 A.D.3d at 887; People v Oliver, 215 A.D.3d at 773; People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770-771). Additionally, the defendant reported to a probation officer that he had a history of drug abuse (see People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d at 771).

  2. People v. Coleman

    225 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 4 times

    [3] Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11, as the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had a history of substance abuse (see People v. Bullock, 217 A.D.3d 886, 887, 191 N.Y.S.3d 677; People v. Oliver, 215 A.D.3d 772, 773, 185 N.Y.S.3d 719). The defendant received four disciplinary sanctions for drug use and was referred to an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while he was incarcerated (see People v. Bullock, 217 A.D.3d at 887, 191 N.Y.S.3d 677; People v. Oliver, 215 A.D.3d at 773, 185 N.Y.S.3d 719; People v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770–771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531). Additionally, the defendant reported to a probation officer that he had a history of drug abuse (see People v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d at 771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531).

  3. People v. France

    219 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The People proffered, inter alia, the case summary prepared by the Board which indicated, among other things, that the defendant admitted to using drugs at the time he committed the sex offense for which he was convicted and that the defendant was referred to an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while he was incarcerated. The People also submitted the defendant's prison disciplinary records which indicated that he received nine disciplinary sanctions for drug/alcohol use while he was incarcerated (seePeople v. Gorostiza, 210 A.D.3d 1118, 1119–1120, 179 N.Y.S.3d 334 ; People v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770–771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531 ). The Supreme Court's assessment of 10 points under risk factor 12 for the defendant's failure to accept responsibility for his conduct was also supported by clear and convincing evidence.

  4. People v. Radley

    189 N.Y.S.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11. The People presented clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse (seePeople v. Davis, 199 A.D.3d 1030, 154 N.Y.S.3d 815 ; People v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770–771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531 ). 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, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]).

  5. People v. Radley

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 3251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11. The People presented clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse (see People v Davis, 199 A.D.3d 1030; People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770-771).

  6. People v. Gorostiza

    210 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    The case summary prepared by the Board stated that the defendant admitted to the Department of Corrections and Community Service that he had a history of drug abuse. Moreover, the defendant was referred to a substance abuse treatment program based on his substance abuse history (seePeople v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770–771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531 ; People v. Jones, 130 A.D.3d 601, 10 N.Y.S.3d 894 ; People v. Finizio, 100 A.D.3d 977, 978, 954 N.Y.S.2d 636 ). The Supreme Court also properly assessed the defendant 10 points under risk factor 12 for failing to accept responsibility for his conduct.

  7. People v. Gorostiza

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 6826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    The case summary prepared by the Board stated that the defendant admitted to the Department of Corrections and Community Service that he had a history of drug abuse. Moreover, the defendant was referred to a substance abuse treatment program based on his substance abuse history (see People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770-771; People v Jones, 130 A.D.3d 601; People v Finizio, 100 A.D.3d 977, 978).

  8. People v. Davis

    199 A.D.3d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11. The People presented clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse (seePeople v. Padgett, 170 A.D.3d 1054, 94 N.Y.S.3d 443 ; People v. Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770–771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 531 ; People v. Zavala, 114 A.D.3d 653, 654, 979 N.Y.S.2d 660 ). 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 ; seePeople 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 Guidelines]).

  9. People v. Davis

    No. 2019-07042 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 24, 2021)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11. The People presented clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse (see People v Padgett, 170 A.D.3d 1054; People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770-771; People v Zavala, 114 A.D.3d 653, 654). 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; see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861; see also SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]).

  10. People v. Davis

    No. 2021-06638 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 24, 2021)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11. The People presented clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's history of drug and alcohol abuse (see People v Padgett, 170 A.D.3d 1054; People v Aldarondo, 136 A.D.3d 770, 770-771; People v Zavala, 114 A.D.3d 653, 654). 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; see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861; see also SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]).