Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016

People v. Calle-Calle

People v. Calle-Calle
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 14, 2016 · Dillon, Leventhal, Cohen, Miller
2016 NY Slip Op 8380; 145 A.D.3d 804; 41 N.Y.S.3d 911
People v. Calle-Calle

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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 (Cyrulnik, J.), dated March 25, 2016, 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.

Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), a defendant requesting a downward departure from that defendant’s presumptive risk level “must identify, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006)” (People v Carter, 138 AD3d 706, 707 [2016]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). “The defendant must then prove the existence of that factor in the case by a preponderance of the evidence” (People v Carter, 138 AD3d at 707; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861). “If the defendant satisfies that burden, a downward departure becomes a matter of discretion for the court. In determining whether to downwardly depart, the court must examine all the relevant circumstances” (People v Carter, 138 AD3d at 707; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, and, thus, properly designated him a level two sex offender (see People v Vizcarra, 138 AD3d 815, 816 [2016]; People v Sadler, 124 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2015]).

Dillon, J.R, Leventhal, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.