existence of any mitigating factors in New York

2024The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 861 ).

2023Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his application for a downward departure, since he failed to demonstrate the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines that tended to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community ( see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 861 ; People v Musmacker , 213 AD3d 784, 786 ; People v Johnson , 203 AD3d 762 ).

2015We conclude that defendant failed to meet that standard inasmuch as he did not establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his risk level (see People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918, 918 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]; People v Worrell, 113 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2014]).

2015We conclude that defendant failed to meet that standard inasmuch as he did not establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his risk level (see People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918, 918 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]; People v Worrell, 113 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2014]).

2015We conclude that defendant failed to meet that standard inasmuch as he did not establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his risk level (see People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918, 918 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]; People v Worrell, 113 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2014]).

2015We conclude that defendant failed to meet that standard inasmuch as he did not establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his risk level (see People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918, 918 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]; People v Worrell, 113 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2014]).

2020Finally, the circumstances here do not mirror the "rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion" in the interest of justice "to depart downward from [a] defendant's presumptive sex offender risk assessment level" ( People v Williams , 148 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2017] [where 30 years after defendant was convicted of the rape and robbery of a 22-year-old woman the court granted a downward departure to risk level two, finding that his pain and mobility problems paired with his completion of significant academic and therapeutic programing "greatly diminish[ed] his likelihood of re-offend

2020Finally, the circumstances here do not mirror the "rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion" in the interest of justice "to depart downward from [a] defendant's presumptive sex offender risk assessment level" ( People v Williams , 148 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2017] [where 30 years after defendant was convicted of the rape and robbery of a 22-year-old woman the court granted a downward departure to risk level two, finding that his pain and mobility problems paired with his completion of significant academic and therapeutic programing "greatly diminish[ed] his likelihood of re-offend

2020Finally, the circumstances here do not mirror the "rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion" in the interest of justice "to depart downward from [a] defendant's presumptive sex offender risk assessment level" ( People v Williams , 148 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2017] [where 30 years after defendant was convicted of the rape and robbery of a 22-year-old woman the court granted a downward departure to risk level two, finding that his pain and mobility problems paired with his completion of significant academic and therapeutic programing "greatly diminish[ed] his likelihood of re-offend

2020Finally, the circumstances here do not mirror the "rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion" in the interest of justice "to depart downward from [a] defendant's presumptive sex offender risk assessment level" ( People v Williams , 148 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2017] [where 30 years after defendant was convicted of the rape and robbery of a 22-year-old woman the court granted a downward departure to risk level two, finding that his pain and mobility problems paired with his completion of significant academic and therapeutic programing "greatly diminish[ed] his likelihood of re-offend

2025The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Stafford , 240 AD3d 718, 719; People v Mierisch , 239 AD3d 776, 778).

2025The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Stafford , 240 AD3d 718 , 719; People v Mierisch , 239 AD3d 776 , 778).

2025The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Stafford , 240 AD3d 718, 719; People v Mierisch , 239 AD3d 776, 778).

2025The defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Stafford , 240 AD3d 718 , 719; People v Mierisch , 239 AD3d 776 , 778).

2017As a review of the record reflects that defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of youthful offender status (see People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 526-527 [2015]; People v Butler, 126 AD3d at 1124 ).

2017Furthermore, we have reviewed defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed, which was less than the statutory maximum (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [3] [b]; 265.03 [3]), was harsh and excessive and find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Brodhead, 106 AD3d at 1337).

2016County Court explained its reasons for denying the requested downward departure and we find no abuse of discretion in that decision, as defendant failed to prove the existence of any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861-863 ; see also People v Howard, 27 NY3d 337, 342-343 [2016]; People v Pace, 121 AD3d 1315 , 1316 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 914 [2015]).

2015Accordingly, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court correctly denied his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Valdez, 123 AD3d at 786 ).

2015Here, the defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure (see People v Ciudadreal, 125 AD3d 950, 950 [2015]; People v Goodwin, 49 AD3d 619, 620-621 [2008]; see also People v Beers, 124 AD3d 741 , 741 [2015]; People v Valdez, 123 AD3d 785, 786 [2014]).

2015Here, the defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure (see People v Ciudadreal, 125 AD3d 950, 950 [2015]; People v Goodwin, 49 AD3d 619, 620-621 [2008]; see also People v Beers, 124 AD3d 741 , 741 [2015]; People v Valdez, 123 AD3d 785, 786 [2014]).

2015Here, the defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure (see People v Ciudadreal, 125 AD3d 950, 950 [2015]; People v Goodwin, 49 AD3d 619, 620-621 [2008]; see also People v Beers, 124 AD3d 741 , 741 [2015]; People v Valdez, 123 AD3d 785, 786 [2014]).

2011In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the existence of any mitigating factors not taken into account by the guidelines that warranted a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v Barnett, 71 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2010]; People v Roe, 47 AD3d 1156 [2008], Iv denied 10 NY3d 707 [2008]).

2009Finally, the defendant failed to establish the existence of any mitigating factors warranting a downward departure (see People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]).