People v Mabb
2006 NYSlipOp 06902
September 28, 2006
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 08, 2006


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dale R. Mabb, Appellant.

[*1]

Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered June 7, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Following defendant's 2000 conviction upon his plea of guilty to rape in the second degree, he was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. In anticipation of his release, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment instrument assigning defendant a score of 75, which placed him in the presumptive risk level II category under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). However, the Board recommended that he be classified as a risk level III sex offender based on the existence of a presumptive override factor, namely, a 1994 felony conviction for attempted rape in the first degree. After a hearing, County Court adopted the Board's recommendation by written order and defendant now appeals.

While the existence of an applicable override factor—here, defendant's prior felony conviction for a sex crime—does not mandate a risk level III classification (see People v Sanchez, 20 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]), it does raise defendant's presumptive risk level from level II to level III (see People v David W., 95 NY2d 130, 135 [2000]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 3-4 [Nov. 1997]). Any downward departure from a presumptive risk level must be supported by clear and convincing evidence of mitigating circumstances (see People v Mothersell, 26 AD3d 620, 621 [2006]; People v Douglas, 18 AD3d [*2]967, 968 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). As no such evidence is presented here, we are unable to conclude that County Court abused its discretion in classifying defendant as a risk level III sex offender.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.