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. Harold MOTHERSELL, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered January 26, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the second degree, attempted rape in the second degree and attempted sodomy in the second degree and was sentenced to 4 to 13 years in prison. After violating probation, defendant was then resentenced to two years in prison. Prior to his release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders evaluated and classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6-C). Following a risk assessment hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation and classified defendant as a presumptive risk level III sex offender. Defendant now appeals, contending that a downward departure is warranted.
“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' ” (People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545, 545, 778 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2004], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [Nov. 1997]; accord People v. McCormick, 21 A.D.3d 1221, 1222, 801 N.Y.S.2d 432 [2005] ). Special factors warranting a downward departure are to be determined by County Court in its sound discretion and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence (see People v. McCormick, supra at 1222, 801 N.Y.S.2d 432). Here, the record reveals that County Court considered defendant's age, physical health and criminal history in making the classification and found that these factors did not warrant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. Inasmuch as we are unable to conclude that County Court abused its discretion, we decline to disturb the determination (see People v. Ashley, 19 A.D.3d 882, 883, 797 N.Y.S.2d 623 [2005] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
PETERS, J.
CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, LAHTINEN and ROSE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: February 09, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)