From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Artis

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2017–04339

06-27-2018

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael ARTIS, appellant.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated March 15, 2017, 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.

The defendant appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), contending that the County Court should have granted his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

While a defendant's response to sex offender treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is "exceptional" (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006][hereinafter the Guidelines] ), here, the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (see People v. Carini, 156 A.D.3d 829, 829–830, 65 N.Y.S.3d 720 ; People v. Velasquez, 145 A.D.3d 924, 924, 42 N.Y.S.3d 845 ; People v. Dyson, 130 A.D.3d 600, 600–601, 10 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Torres, 124 A.D.3d 744, 746, 998 N.Y.S.2d 464 ). The defendant failed to identify any other mitigating circumstances that are of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Artis

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

People v. Artis

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael ARTIS, appellant.

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

Date published: Jun 27, 2018

Citations

162 A.D.3d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
162 A.D.3d 1081
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4763

Citing Cases

People v. Zamora

No further evidence, such as testimony or documentary proof, was provided. The defendant's completion of sex…

People v. Felton

As the court found, the defendant's physical limitations were not sufficient to reduce his risk of…