People v. Skipper

2025 NY Slip Op 00685 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · February 5, 2025 · No. 2020-06401

Summary

This Appellate Division decision reviews a Supreme Court order designating the appellant as a Level Three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act following his convictions for sodomy, kidnapping, and assault. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, finding that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving exceptional mitigating factors such as vocational achievements, family support, treatment response, or advanced age. The appellate court concluded that the existing Guidelines adequately accounted for these alleged mitigators and that the defendant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they warranted a lower risk classification.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.; Linda Christopher; Barry E. Warhit; Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 5, 2025
Docket number
2020-06401
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Queens County designating defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act
Precedential value
published
Parties
Joe Skipper v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost‑conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed that the trial court properly denied the downward departure because the defendant failed to meet his burden of identifying and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, an appropriate mitigating factor.

Key quotations

"A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of (1) identifying, 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 ... Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (225 AD3d at 792-794)

Factual background

The defendant was convicted of three counts of first‑degree sodomy, two counts of second‑degree kidnapping, and two counts of second‑degree assault. After a SORA hearing the trial court assessed 130 risk points, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and designated him a level three sex offender.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Queens County held a hearing under SORA, assessed 130 points, denied a downward departure, and designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…