People v. Bowens, 2007-05776
| Decision Date | 21 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-05776 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY BOWENS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant engaged in a sexual relationship with a 32-year old woman Neisha, as well as with her 12-year-old daughter. Neisha learned of her daughter's sexual relationship with the defendant when her daughter gave birth to the defendant's child. The defendant does not controvert the assessment of 120 points to him by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, but he contends that the Supreme Court improperly denied him a downward departure from level three to level two sex offender status. The defendant claims that such departure was warranted because he was romantically involved with the 12-year-old complainant, he had no history of sex crimes, and he was developmentally challenged.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level three to a risk level two. A court has the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level based upon the facts in the record (see People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524, 525 [2005]; People v Girup, 9 AD3d 913 [2004]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). It has been recognized, however, that "[u]tilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally `result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule'" (People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [Nov. 1997]; see People v Ventura, 24 AD3d 527 [2005]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d at 525). A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where "there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v White, 25 AD3d 677 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d at 545). Further, there must be clear and convincing evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lacewell
...level, based upon the facts in the record ( see [103 A.D.3d 786]People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d at 705, 940 N.Y.S.2d 127;People v. Bowens, 55 A.D.3d 809, 810, 866 N.Y.S.2d 291;People v. Taylor, 47 A.D.3d 907, 907, 850 N.Y.S.2d 195;People v. Burgos, 39 A.D.3d 520, 520, 834 N.Y.S.2d 224;People v.......
-
People v. Colavito
...risk level, as determined by use of the risk assessment instrument, based upon the facts in the record ( see People v. Bowens, 55 A.D.3d 809, 810, 866 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Taylor, 47 A.D.3d 907, 907, 850 N.Y.S.2d 195; People v. Burgos, 39 A.D.3d 520, 520, 834 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Hine......
-
People v. Martin
...risk level, as determined by use of the risk assessment instrument, based upon the facts in the record ( see People v. Bowens, 55 A.D.3d 809, 810, 866 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Taylor, 47 A.D.3d 907, 907, 850 N.Y.S.2d 195; People v. Burgos, 39 A.D.3d 520, 520, 834 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Hine......
-
People v. Harris
...to depart from the presumptive risk level, as determined by use of the RAI, based upon the facts in the record ( see People v. Bowens, 55 A.D.3d 809, 810, 866 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Taylor, 47 A.D.3d 907, 907, 850 N.Y.S.2d 195; People v. Burgos, 39 A.D.3d 520, 520, 834 N.Y.S.2d 224; People......