People v. Robinson
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Pena (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Oyola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Haims (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Abdullah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Medina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Pierre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Sawyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Santos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Adams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Wustrau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Morris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Jordan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Bethel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Rocano-Quintuna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Padilla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), dated March 25, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
*806 Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A court determining a defendant’s risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) is not permitted to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level unless the defendant first identifies and proves the presence of “a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” (People v Jordan, 142 AD3d 596, 596 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lathan, 129 AD3d 686, 687 [2015]; SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter the Guidelines]). Here, nearly all of the mitigating circumstances identified by the defendant were adequately taken into account by the Guidelines: his educational and vocational progress while incarcerated, his completion of the sex offender program, his expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and his post-release environment (see People v Grabowski, 142 AD3d 697 [2016]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d 744, 745-746 [2015]; People v Erving, 124 AD3d 447 [2015]; People v Riverso, 96 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2012]; People v Roe, 47 AD3d 1156 [2008]).
The remaining circumstances cited by the defendant do not warrant a downward departure. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to depart from the presumptive risk level based on those circumstances, and thus, properly designated him a level three sex offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; People v Grabowski, 142 AD3d at 698; People v Torres, 124 AD3d at 745-746).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.