From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Padin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 5, 2014
122 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2013-10806

11-05-2014

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Wilmer PADIN, appellant.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.


Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated November 13, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A court may exercise its discretion and depart upward from the presumptive risk level where ‘it concludes that there exists an aggravating ... factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act] guidelines' ” (People v. Richardson, 101 A.D.3d 837, 838, 957 N.Y.S.2d 158, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] ). “ ‘The People must prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence’ ” (People v. Richardson, 101 A.D.3d at 837–838, 957 N.Y.S.2d 158, quoting People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 123, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). Here, in light of the extreme brutality and violence of the defendant's conduct in the commission of the underlying crime, there existed an aggravating factor which is not otherwise collectively taken into account by the guidelines, which tended to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and, thus, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's application for an upward departure (see People v. Mantilla, 70 A.D.3d 477, 478, 894 N.Y.S.2d 418 ; People v. Ferrer, 35 A.D.3d 297, 826 N.Y.S.2d 70 ).


Summaries of

People v. Padin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 5, 2014
122 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Padin

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Wilmer PADIN, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 5, 2014

Citations

122 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
995 N.Y.S.2d 229
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7486

Citing Cases

People v. Meszesan

Clearly, the Defendant's presumptive Level I (low risk) classification does not adequately address his…

People v. Auleta

Defendant now appeals. Initially, we note that an "[u]pward departure from the presumptive risk level is…