PEOPLE v. ARTIS (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated March 15, 2017, 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 defendant appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C;  hereinafter SORA), contending that the County Court should have granted his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

While a defendant's response to sex offender treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is “exceptional” (SORA:  Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006][hereinafter the Guidelines] ), here, the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (see People v. Carini, 156 A.D.3d 829, 829–830, 65 N.Y.S.3d 720;  People v. Velasquez, 145 A.D.3d 924, 924, 42 N.Y.S.3d 845;  People v. Dyson, 130 A.D.3d 600, 600–601, 10 N.Y.S.3d 885;  People v. Torres, 124 A.D.3d 744, 746, 998 N.Y.S.2d 464).  The defendant failed to identify any other mitigating circumstances that are of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701).  Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation.

AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.