From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pritchard

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2023
213 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

831 KA 22-00214

02-03-2023

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Todd S. PRITCHARD, Defendant-Appellant.

KEEM APPEALS, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


KEEM APPEALS, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq. ), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established at the SORA hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged mitigating circumstances existed in his case and that they were, as a matter of law, mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; People v. Gillotti , 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ; cf. People v. Mann , 177 A.D.3d 1319, 1320, 110 N.Y.S.3d 357 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 902, 2020 WL 2071370 [2020] ), we conclude, upon weighing the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances, that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a downward departure. The totality of the circumstances demonstrates that "defendant's presumptive risk level does not represent an over-assessment of his dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism" ( People v. Burgess , 191 A.D.3d 1256, 1257, 137 N.Y.S.3d 781 [4th Dept. 2021] ; see People v. Butler , 129 A.D.3d 1534, 1535, 11 N.Y.S.3d 757 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 904, 2015 WL 5254753 [2015] ).


Summaries of

People v. Pritchard

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2023
213 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

People v. Pritchard

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Todd S. PRITCHARD…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2023

Citations

213 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
182 N.Y.S.3d 467

Citing Cases

People v. Ponce

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request…

People v. Ponce

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request…