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.
PEOPLE of State of New York, etc., respondent, v. Jose FIOL, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated January 5, 2006, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A departure from the presumptive risk level, as determined by the defendant's total Risk Factor score on the Risk Assessment Instrument submitted by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board), 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. The court's finding in this regard must be supported by clear and convincing evidence” (People v. Hands, 37 A.D.3d 441, 829 N.Y.S.2d 224 [internal citations omitted] ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Board's case summary, together with the information in the probation report, provided clear and convincing evidence that aggravating factors existed which were not fully taken into account by the guidelines, and which supported the Board's strong recommendation that an upward departure to a level three designation was warranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in making an upward departure from the presumptive level one designation, as determined by the defendant's score, to a level three designation (see People v. Mudd, 43 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 843 N.Y.S.2d 135; People v. Hands, 37 A.D.3d 441, 829 N.Y.S.2d 224; cf. People v. Burgos, 39 A.D.3d 520, 834 N.Y.S.2d 224).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that, in making an upward departure as to the defendant's risk level determination, the Supreme Court was restricted to a one-level upward departure (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4-5 [2006 ed.]; see also People v. Thornton, 34 A.D.3d 1026, 824 N.Y.S.2d 459; People v. Kwiatkowski, 24 A.D.3d 878, 805 N.Y.S.2d 188).
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: March 25, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)