Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. LASHAWN J. SCOTT, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we reversed an order determining that defendant was a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), and we remitted the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the ground that the People had “failed to provide defendant with the requisite 10–day notice that they intended to seek a determination different from that recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders” (People v. Scott, 96 AD3d 1430, 1430; see § 168–n [3] ). Defendant now appeals from an order that, following a new hearing, again classified him as a level three risk, and he contends that the court erred in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. We reject that contention.
It is well settled that the burden is on the People “to establish defendant's risk level under SORA by clear and convincing evidence” (People v. Brown, 302 A.D.2d 919, 920; see Correction Law § 168–n [3]; People v. Wroten, 286 A.D.2d 189, 199, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 610). Once that presumptive risk level is established, however, either the People or the defendant may seek a departure from that presumptive risk level. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines' (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed] ). There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance[s] to warrant an upward or downward departure” (People v. Guaman, 8 AD3d 545, 545; see People v. Perrah, 99 AD3d 1257, 1257, lv denied 20 NY3d 854; cf. People v. Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 122–128, lv denied 18 NY3d 803). In our view, “defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure” (People v. Marks, 31 AD3d 1142, 1143, lv denied 7 NY3d 715; see People v. Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060, 1060).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 12–01533
Decided: November 08, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)