| People v Lyons |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03092 [72 AD3d 776] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v London Lyons, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Joanna Hershey, andRichard R. Martell of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.),dated August 19, 2005, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuantto Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and thedefendant is designated as a level one sex offender.
Although a court is empowered to exercise its discretion and depart from the presumptiverisk level based upon facts in the record, it has been recognized that utilization of the riskassessment instrument will generally "result in the proper classification in most cases so thatdepartures will be the exception not the rule" (People v Coffey, 45 AD3d 658, 658 [2007], quoting People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545,545 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404,405 [2005]). A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted only where " 'there existsan aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken intoaccount by the guidelines' " (People v Coffey, 45 AD3d at 658, quoting Sex OffenderRegistration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [Nov. 1997]; seePeople v Burgos, 39 AD3d at 520; People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675, 676 [2006]; People vInghilleri, 21 AD3d at 405). There must be clear and convincing evidence of a specialcircumstance to warrant a departure from the presumptive risk level (see People vCoffey, 45 AD3d at 658; People vBurgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d at 405).
Here, the County Court granted the People's application for an upward departure. However,the County Court failed to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which itbased its determination (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Smith, 11 NY3d 797,798 [2008]). Remittal is not required, though, as the record in this case is sufficient for this Courtto make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law (see People v Hill, 50 AD3d 990, 991 [2008]; People v Banks, 48 AD3d 656[2008]; People v Penson, 38 AD3d866, 867 [2007]).
The People contend that they demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence the existenceof an aggravating factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account bythe [*2]guidelines that warranted the upward departure.However, upon our review of the record, we disagree (see People v Fuller, 37 AD3d 689 [2007]). Certain circumstancessurrounding the defendant's sex offense that the People highlight are adequately taken intoaccount by the guidelines. For example, although the People point out that the defendant placeda knife against the victim's throat and dragged her, the defendant was already assessed 30 pointsunder the "use of violence" risk factor (cf. People v Abraham, 39 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2007]). Moreover,we do not view the remaining circumstances highlighted by the People that are not taken intoaccount by the guidelines as being probative of the issue of the defendant's "risk of reoffense"(Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 5 [2006];see People v Burgos, 39 AD3d at 521; cf. People v Cherry, 60 AD3d 484 [2009]; People v Mallaber, 59 AD3d 989,990 [2009]; People v Vives, 57AD3d 312, 313 [2008]; People vBuford, 56 AD3d 381 [2008]; People v Abraham, 39 AD3d at 1209; People v Shattuck, 37 AD3d1041, 1041-1042 [2007]).
Accordingly, the County Court should not have granted the People's application for anupward departure, and the defendant must be designated as a level one sex offender. Covello,J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.