You are here: / / YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL...
,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a youthful offender (YO) adjudication can be considered in assessing the risk level of a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant contested the level three sex offender designation. The Court of Appeals held that consideration of the YO adjudication in this context did not violate the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL):

CPL 720.35 (2) provides the Board with access to YO-related documents. Defendant’s argument that access alone does not authorize use ignores that the CPL does not permit access for its own sake, but in furtherance of a statutory purpose. Here, that purpose is found in SORA, which requires the Board establish guidelines and make risk level determinations based, in part, on an offender’s past actions (Correction Law § 168-l [5]). * * *

Certainly, the youthful offender statute reflects the Legislature’s recognition of the difference between a youth and an adult, and the Legislature clearly made a policy choice to give a class of young people a distinct benefit. Nevertheless, in concluding that an earlier YO adjudication may be used in assessing points against defendant, the Board has not acted in violation of the CPL … . People v Francis, 2018 NY Slip Op 01017, CtApp 2-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (OUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))

You might also like
Defendant’s Statement Was Circumstantial Evidence of the Taking Element of Grand Larceny Because an Innocent Inference from the Statement Was Possible; Video Surveillance Was Direct Evidence of the Taking Element Despite Defendant’s “Innocent” Explanation of His Actions
Counsel’s Failure to Object to Prosecutor’s PowerPoint Presentation Did Not Require Reversal for Ineffective Assistance
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DREW HIS GUN BEFORE THE UNARMED VICTIM “SWIPED” AT IT, THE DEFENDANT WAS THE INITIAL “DEADLY FORCE” AGGRESSOR AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP).
A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW COPY NUMBER (LCN) DNA EVIDENCE AND THE EFFICACY OF A FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).
WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER.
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.

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

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT... POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE...