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. Baurzhan Kachatov, appellant.
Submitted—April 11, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated January 13, 2011, 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.
The People bear of the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of points under the Guidelines issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6–C [hereinafter SORA]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v. Harris, 100 AD3d 727, 727, lv denied 20 NY3d 861; People v. Thompson, 95 AD3d 977, 977). Here, the hearing court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender. First, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence established that he had a history of alcohol abuse (see People v. Palmer, 20 NY3d 373, 377–378), so the hearing court appropriately assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (“Drug or Alcohol Abuse”). Including the 15 points, the total assessment of 80 points presumptively classified the defendant as a level two sex offender. Moreover, the hearing court did not err in refusing to downwardly depart from that presumptive risk level, because, among other things, the defendant failed to show that his expected deportation was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” (People v. Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
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: 2011–00646
Decided: May 22, 2013
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)