From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sally

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 18, 2013
105 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-04-18

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald SALLY, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nicolas Schumann–Ortega of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Ravi Kantha of counsel), for respondent.



Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nicolas Schumann–Ortega of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Ravi Kantha of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, ROMÁN, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuantto the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), and order, same court (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2012, which effectively denied defendant's motion for renewal, and also denied defendant's Correction Law § 168–o petition for modification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the risk factor for sexual intercourse. Although defendant was permitted to plead guilty to first-degree sexual abuse in the underlying case, the victim's grand jury testimony constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168–n[3] ) that satisfied the People's burden ( see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 572–574, 576–577, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009] ) and established the element of penetration.

The record relating to the February 16, 2012 order establishes that the court effectively denied renewal, and that the denial was proper given that defendant failed to explain why, had he exercised due diligence, the allegedly new evidence could not have been presented at the original hearing ( seeCPLR 2221[e][3] ). To the extent the court deemed defendant's motion to renew to be a request for modification under Correction Law § 168–o, it properly required defendant to establish whether he was entitled to a downward departure by clear and convincing evidence ( People v. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492, 850 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 708, 859 N.Y.S.2d 393, 889 N.E.2d 80 [2008] ). In any event, regardless of how the proceedings are characterized, we find no basis for a discretionary departure ( see People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 409, 901 N.Y.S.2d 569, 927 N.E.2d 1053 [2010];Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 568 n. 2, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983 [2009];People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 [2008] ) to level one. The underlying sex crime was committed against a 10–year–old child, and defendant's arguments regarding mitigating factors are unpersuasive. In particular, defendant cites medical conditions that did not prevent him from committing the underlying crime.


Summaries of

People v. Sally

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 18, 2013
105 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Sally

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald SALLY…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 2013

Citations

105 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
963 N.Y.S.2d 233
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2647

Citing Cases

People v. Gillotti

Given the lack of express statutory or regulatory guidance on the question of a defendant's burden of proof…

People v. Gillotti

Given the lack of express statutory or regulatory guidance on the question of a defendant's burden of proof…