You are here: / / In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor...
,

In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor 7 (“Relationship Between Offender and Victim”)

In affirming a SORA determination, the Fourth Department noted that the 20 point assessment under risk factor 7 (entitled “Relationship Between Offender and Victim”), based upon the defendant’s pleading guilty to receiving child pornography (a federal statute), was appropriate:

With respect to …the 20 points assessed under risk factor 7, we note that the underlying conviction was a federal offense to which defendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (18 USC 2252 [a] [2]).  Although the Court of Appeals has stated that “[i]t does not seem that factor 7 was written with possessors of child pornography in mind” …, the Court of Appeals determined that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7 in a case where the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography….  Consequently, we conclude that the court here properly assessed points under risk factor 7. People v Noyes, 687, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

You might also like
JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND FATHER AND PRIMARY CUSTODY TO FATHER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for “Interest of Justice” Extension of Time to Effect Service Explained
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAD BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT.
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.
Arbitrator’s Rulings Largely Unreviewable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Judge’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Call Inmate Witness Required Rever... Improper Admission of Evidence of Similar (Pending) Criminal Charge under Molineux...