From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mabb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 28, 2006
32 A.D.3d 1135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

98680.

September 28, 2006.

Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered June 7, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Justin Brusgul, Voorheesville, for appellant.

Ann V. Sullivan, Special Prosecutor, Saratoga Springs, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ.


Following defendant's 2000 conviction upon his plea of guilty to rape in the second degree, he was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. In anticipation of his release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment instrument assigning defendant a score of 75, which placed him in the presumptive risk level II category under the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art 6-C). However, the Board recommended that he be classified as a risk level III sex offender based on the existence of a presumptive override factor, namely, a 1994 felony conviction for attempted rape in the first degree. After a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation by written order and defendant now appeals.

While the existence of an applicable override factor — here, defendant's prior felony conviction for a sex crime — does not mandate a risk level III classification ( see People v Sanchez, 20 AD3d 693, 694), it does raise defendant's presumptive risk level from level II to level III ( see People v David W., 95 NY2d 130, 135; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 3-4 [Nov. 1997]). Any downward departure from a presumptive risk level must be supported by clear and convincing evidence of mitigating circumstances ( see People v Mothersell, 26 AD3d 620, 621; People v Douglas, 18 AD3d 967, 968, lv denied 5 NY3d 710). As no such evidence is presented here, we are unable to conclude that County Court abused its discretion in classifying defendant as a risk level III sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People v. Mabb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 28, 2006
32 A.D.3d 1135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Mabb

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DALE R. MABB, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 28, 2006

Citations

32 A.D.3d 1135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6902
821 N.Y.S.2d 483

Citing Cases

People v. Scone

Defendant argues that County Court should have granted his request for a downward departure to a risk level…

State v. Pride

s the process by which the court arrived at its decision to classify defendant as a risk level III sex…