From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McCurdy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 15, 2014
121 A.D.3d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2011-03913.

10-15-2014

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Chance McCURDY, appellant.

 Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Michael C. Taglieri of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Linda Breen, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Michael C. Taglieri of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Linda Breen, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), dated April 12, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In determining a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C; hereinafter SORA), “[a] downward departure from a sex offender's presumptive risk level generally is only warranted where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” (People v. Watson, 95 A.D.3d 978, 979, 944 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] ). A defendant seeking a downward departure 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 ).

The defendant contends that he was entitled to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level because his motive for committing the underlying sex crime was based in revenge, and not sexual gratification. However, the defendant failed to show that his alleged motive for committing the underlying sex crime was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” (id.; see People v. Knox, 12 N.Y.3d 60, 70, 875 N.Y.S.2d 828, 903 N.E.2d 1149 ; People v. Romero, 113 A.D.3d 605, 977 N.Y.S.2d 900 ). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level.


Summaries of

People v. McCurdy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 15, 2014
121 A.D.3d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. McCurdy

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Chance McCURDY, appellant.

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2014

Citations

121 A.D.3d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
994 N.Y.S.2d 403
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 6958

Citing Cases

People v. Price

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…

People v. Manning

If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the…