You are here: / / Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only...
,

Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only One SORA Disposition for the “Current Offenses” (Which Included the Offenses from Both Counties) Can Be Held

The Defendant was convicted (by guilty pleas) of sex offenses committed in two counties.  The two district attorney offices coordinated the defendant’s sentences to run concurrently.  Prior to defendant’s release a SORA hearing was held in one of the two counties, taking into account all of the offenses to which defendant pled guilty.  When defendant was notified the second county had scheduled a SORA hearing he filed a motion to dismiss the second proceeding, arguing it was unauthorized by SORA and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The Second Department agreed and dismissed the second proceeding.  The decision includes a substantive discussion of statutory interpretation and the purposes and application of the Sex Offender Registration Act:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to charges contained in accusatory instruments filed in two different counties, two in Queens County and one in Richmond County. Nonetheless,… all of those offenses constituted “Current Offenses” for the purpose of determining the defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA and, indeed, were considered as such by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, in conducting their SORA assessment.

The only reasonable interpretation of the statute and Guidelines, and the one that most effectuates SORA’s purpose, is that only one SORA “disposition” may be made per “Current Offense,” or group of “Current Offenses.” Once a court has rendered “an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” and submitted such order to the Division (Correction Law § 168-d[3]), the Division has all the information it needs to create a file for the defendant and add it to the registry (see Correction Law § 168-b[1]). In this case, once the Division received the SORA order from Richmond County, it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of “protect[ing] the public from” this particular sex offender … . People v Cook, 2015 NY Slip Op 04295, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

You might also like
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY FANNIE MAE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, FANNIE MAE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion for Default Judgment Should Have Been Denied; Motion to Compel Acceptance of Late Answer Should Have Been Granted
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REMAINDER BENEFICIARIES’ ACTION ALLEGING THE EXECUTOR’S VIOLATION OF A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXECUTOR TO KEEP THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S BUSINESS IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DAUGHTERS’ REMAINDER INTERESTS WERE DETERMINED, DID NOT VIOLATE THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE OF THE WILL WHICH PROHIBITED THE DAUGHTERS FROM CONTESTING THE WILL, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT).

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

Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request... Sale of Notes Was Champertous—Seller Subcontracted Out Its Litigation...