MCCALL, KURT A., PEOPLE v ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    316
    KA 15-00977
    PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    KURT A. MCCALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (James J.
    Piampiano, J.), entered April 27, 2015. The order determined that
    defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender
    Registration Act.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a
    level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act
    (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court
    erred in failing to grant a downward departure from his presumptive
    risk level. “Defendant failed to request a downward departure to a
    level two risk, and thus he failed to preserve for our review his
    contention that the court erred in failing to afford him that downward
    departure from his presumptive level three risk” (People v Quinones,
    91 AD3d 1302, 1303, lv denied 19 NY3d 802; see People v Havens, 144
    AD3d 1632, 1632; People v Montanez, 88 AD3d 1278, 1280; cf. People v
    George, 141 AD3d 1177, 1178).
    In any event, we conclude that the facts herein do not warrant a
    downward departure. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is
    warranted if there is ‘an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind,
    or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by
    the guidelines’ ” (People v Smith, 122 AD3d 1325, 1325, quoting Sex
    Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary
    at 4 [2006]; see People v Carlberg, 145 AD3d 1646, 1646-1647).
    Defendant failed to identify or establish the existence of any such
    mitigating factor (see People v Scone, 145 AD3d 1327, 1328; Montanez,
    88 AD3d at 1280; see also People v Finocchiaro, 140 AD3d 1676, 1676-
    -2-                  316
    KA 15-00977
    1677, lv denied 28 NY3d 906).
    Entered:   March 31, 2017             Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 15-00977

Filed Date: 3/31/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2017