Majority
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 (history of drug or alcohol abuse) based on information contained in the presentence report
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level two designation. Since the defendant failed to identify a mitigating factor not otherwise adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act Guidelines, the Supreme Court lacked the discretion to grant such a downward departure (see People v Martinez, 104 AD3d 924 , 924-925 [2013]; People v Whidbee, 101 AD3d 840 [2012]; People v Peeples, 98 AD3d 491 , 491-492 [2012]).
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court deprived him of due process by using a Risk Assessment Instrument in determining his risk level is without merit (see People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; People v Washington, 47 AD3d 908 , 909 [2008]; People v Flowers, 35 AD3d 690 , 690-691 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Boykin 102 AD3d 937 p. 664
- People v. Murphy 68 AD3d 832 at 832-833 p. 664
- People v. Masters 19 AD3d 387 p. 664
- People v. Mosley 106 AD3d 1067 at 1068 p. 664
- People v. Vega 79 AD3d 718 at 719 p. 664
- People v. Martinez 104 AD3d 924 at 924-925 p. 664
- People v. Peeples 98 AD3d 491 at 491-492 p. 664
- People v. Guitard 57 AD3d 751 p. 664
- People v. Washington 47 AD3d 908 at 909 p. 664