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
City Immune from Liability for Actions of Police Engaged in a Governmental Function–No Special Relationship with Plaintiff
INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

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...