People v Sanchez

Annotate this Case
People v Sanchez 2022 NY Slip Op 05508 Decided on October 04, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 04, 2022
Before: Gische, J.P., Friedman, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.
Ind. No. 3559/18 Appeal No. 16329 Case No. 2021-02305

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Ricardo Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.



Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly Morgan of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2021, which adjudicated defendant a risk level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly assessed points under the risk factor for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, based on a tier III infraction that was sufficiently recent, in that it occurred about 7 months before the preparation of the case summary and 11 months before the hearing. Furthermore, it represented a pattern of serious misconduct.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant, including the fact that he will receive special supervision under an Assisted Outpatient Treatment program, were adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument, or were outweighed by defendant's risk of reoffense as indicated by his history of sex offenses and related mental illness. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 4, 2022



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.