You are here: / / SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) I...
,

SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s SORA determination because the court failed to follow the procedure required for an incarcerated defendant.  The SORA determination was made at sentencing:

In this case, the Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to a nine-month term of incarceration without any probation supervision. The court conducted the risk assessment hearing and made its risk level determination immediately after sentencing, using a risk level assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office. This violated SORA and deprived the defendant of his right to due process … . Pursuant to the SORA statutory scheme, a risk level determination should not have been made until 30 days before his release from custody (see Correction Law § 168-n[2]… ). The court’s determination should have been preceded by the Board’s risk level recommendation, and the defendant should have been notified of the opportunity to submit to the Board any information that he believed was relevant for its review (see Correction Law § 168-n[2], [3]). Under the circumstances presented here, the fact that the defendant did not explicitly object to this procedure does not indicate that he knowingly and intelligently waived these statutory and due process rights or failed to preserve the issue for appellate review … . Moreover, while Correction Law § 168-l(8) provides that, notwithstanding the Board’s failure to act, a court may still make a determination regarding a sex offender’s risk level, “this must be read as applying only where the Board had the opportunity to make a recommendation in the first instance” … . Here, the Board had no such opportunity, since the risk level determination was erroneously made immediately after the defendant was sentenced. As a result, “the Supreme Court was without a statutorily-authorized basis for making a risk level determination”… .  People v Game, 2013 NY Slip Op 06670, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

You might also like
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ASSESSMENT OF POINTS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS SUSPENDING OR MODIFYING THE LAW IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 TOLLED THE TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNTIL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2020 (SECOND DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal Under Doctrine of Res Judicata Affirmed

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Allow Hearsay Admissible as Statement Against Penal Interest Required... Uncharged Crime Evidence (911 Call) Admissible to Explain Aggressive Actions...