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, respondent, v. Quentin L. Bussie, appellant.
Submitted—March 24, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated April 19, 2010, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A court has the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level, as determined by use of the risk assessment instrument, based upon the facts in the record (see People v. Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810; People v. Taylor, 47 AD3d 907, 907; People v. Burgos, 39 AD3d 520, 520; People v. Hines, 24 AD3d 524, 525). However, “utilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally ‘result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule’ ” (People v. Guaman, 8 AD3d 545, 545, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed]; see People v. Bowens, 55 AD3d at 810; People v. Taylor, 47 AD3d at 908; People v. Burgos, 39 AD3d at 520; People v. Hines, 24 AD3d at 525). 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 [2006 ed]; see People v. Bowens, 55 AD3d at 810; People v. Taylor, 47 AD3d at 908; People v. Burgos, 39 AD3d at 520; People v. Hines, 24 AD3d at 525).
Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of mitigating circumstances of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines (see People v. Mendez, 79 AD3d 834, NY3d, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 68259 [2011]; People v. Maiello, 32 AD3d 463).
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–05114
Decided: April 19, 2011
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)