People v. Sandy

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bonds

    170 N.Y.S.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive level two designation to a level three designation. The People demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006) (seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ), including the brutality and violence of the defendant's conduct during the commission of the crimes against the victim of the multiple sexual assaults, as well as the members of her family, who were bound and locked in a closet for several hours and forced to witness some of the sexual attacks perpetrated by the defendant and his accomplices (seePeople v. Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 916, 100 N.Y.S.3d 346 ; People v. Shim, 139 A.D.3d 68, 76–77, 28 N.Y.S.3d 87 ; People v. Maldonado, 127 A.D.3d 714, 715, 4 N.Y.S.3d 534 ; People v. Suber, 91 A.D.3d 619, 620, 935 N.Y.S.2d 898 ). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

  2. People v. Bonds

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive level two designation to a level three designation. The People demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006) (see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861), including the brutality and violence of the defendant's conduct during the commission of the crimes against the victim of the multiple sexual assaults, as well as the members of her family, who were bound and locked in a closet for several hours and forced to witness some of the sexual attacks perpetrated by the defendant and his accomplices (see People v Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 916; People v Shim, 139 A.D.3d 68, 76-77; People v Maldonado, 127 A.D.3d 714, 715; People v Suber, 91 A.D.3d 619, 620). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

  3. People v. Rodriguez

    No. 2022-01189 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 23, 2022)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly granted the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive risk level. Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident in which the defendant committed three separate sexual assaults of the victim over the course of approximately three months, as well as the documented history of the defendant's domestic violence with respect to the same victim and his nonadherence to prior orders of protection in favor of other victims, we agree with the court's determination that there were aggravating facts not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines (see People v Clark, 197 A.D.3d 668, 669; People v Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 916; People v Amorin, 164 A.D.3d 1483, 1483-1484). Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted an upward departure to avoid an underassessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 841) and properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

  4. People v. Rodriguez

    202 A.D.3d 1114 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly granted the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive risk level. Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident in which the defendant committed three separate sexual assaults of the victim over the course of approximately three months, as well as the documented history of the defendant's domestic violence with respect to the same victim and his nonadherence to prior orders of protection in favor of other victims, we agree with the court's determination that there were aggravating facts not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines (seePeople v. Clark, 197 A.D.3d 668, 669, 152 N.Y.S.3d 506 ; People v. Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 916, 100 N.Y.S.3d 346 ; People v. Amorin, 164 A.D.3d 1483, 1483–1484, 82 N.Y.S.3d 544 ). Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted an upward departure to avoid an underassessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (seePeople v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ) and properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

  5. People v. Clark

    No. 2021-00224 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 18, 2021)

    recidivism" (People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861; see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident during which the defendant would not allow the victim to leave the location for several hours, repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim during that time period, threatened to permit an armed codefendant to injure the victim, and manipulated the victim into thinking he would save her and then, instead, again sexually assaulted her and permitted others to simultaneously sexually assault her, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v Kopstein, 186 A.D.3d 757, 758; People v Baker, 181 A.D.3d 908, 909; People v Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915; People v Soevyn, 116 A.D.3d 684; People v Henry, 91 A.D.3d 927). Further, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted a departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism.

  6. People v. Clark

    197 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    ess and risk of sexual recidivism" ( People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident during which the defendant would not allow the victim to leave the location for several hours, repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim during that time period, threatened to permit an armed codefendant to injure the victim, and manipulated the victim into thinking he would save her and then, instead, again sexually assaulted her and permitted others to simultaneously sexually assault her, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (seePeople v. Kopstein, 186 A.D.3d 757, 758, 126 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; People v. Baker, 181 A.D.3d 908, 909, 122 N.Y.S.3d 325 ; People v. Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 100 N.Y.S.3d 346 ; People v. Soevyn, 116 A.D.3d 684, 983 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; People v. Henry, 91 A.D.3d 927, 938 N.Y.S.2d 323 ). Further, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted a departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism.

  7. People v. Greer

    186 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if "special circumstances" warrant a departure (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines] ). An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, that there exists an aggravating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see Guidelines at 4; People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 100 N.Y.S.3d 346 ).Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the People presented clear and convincing evidence of an aggravating factor not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, namely, his commission of a subsequent offense (seePeople v. Celleri, 138 A.D.3d 708, 27 N.Y.S.3d 888 ; see alsoPeople v. Gauthier, 100 A.D.3d 1223, 1225–1226, 954 N.Y.S.2d 240 ).

  8. People v. Rodriguez

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1189 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly granted the People's application for an upward departure from the presumptive risk level. Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident in which the defendant committed three separate sexual assaults of the victim over the course of approximately three months, as well as the documented history of the defendant's domestic violence with respect to the same victim and his nonadherence to prior orders of protection in favor of other victims, we agree with the court's determination that there were aggravating facts not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines (see People v Clark, 197 A.D.3d 668, 669; People v Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915, 916; People v Amorin, 164 A.D.3d 1483, 1483-1484). Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted an upward departure to avoid an underassessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 841) and properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

  9. People v. Clark

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 4725 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    recidivism" (People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861; see SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Here, in light of the brutality of the defendant's conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, including the prolonged nature of the incident during which the defendant would not allow the victim to leave the location for several hours, repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim during that time period, threatened to permit an armed codefendant to injure the victim, and manipulated the victim into thinking he would save her and then, instead, again sexually assaulted her and permitted others to simultaneously sexually assault her, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v Kopstein, 186 A.D.3d 757, 758; People v Baker, 181 A.D.3d 908, 909; People v Sandy, 173 A.D.3d 915; People v Soevyn, 116 A.D.3d 684; People v Henry, 91 A.D.3d 927). Further, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, that the totality of the circumstances warranted a departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism.