You are here: / Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
, ,

VIRGINIA MURDER CONVICTION WHICH REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA DID NOT QUALIFY DEFENDANT AS A SEX OFFENDER IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been adjudicated a sex offender in New York based upon a murder conviction in Virginia, where he was required to register as a sex offender under Virginia law. The defendant was convicted of murdering a three year old child who had suffered trauma to his genitalia:

The defendant subsequently relocated to New York in November 2017. Following a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, the Supreme Court adjudicated the defendant a level three sex offender. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the court determined that the defendant’s mandatory registration under Virginia law made him a “sex offender” under Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii). The defendant appeals.

The victim’s extensive injuries in this case included “significant traumatic injuries to [his] scrotum and penis,” which were described at trial by the prosecution’s expert medical witness as having been inflicted “within hours to one day from the time of [the infant’s] death” and were “caused by blunt force trauma, probably squeezing” … . Nevertheless, as the People correctly concede, the order appealed from must be reversed in light of the Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in People v Diaz (32 NY3d 538), which held that mandatory registration as a murderer under Virginia Code § 9.1-902(D) does not qualify the defendant as a “sex offender” within the meaning of Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii). People v Covington, 2019 NY Slip Op 05429, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, INSTEAD THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS ‘PREMATURE,’ MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department Supreme Court should have considered defendant’a application for a downward departure and remitted the matter:

The Supreme Court is required to make a determination with respect to a defendant’s risk level 30 calendar days prior to discharge, parole, or release (see Correction Law § 168-n). As part of its determination with respect to a defendant’s risk level, the court may depart downwardly from the presumptive risk level. A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of “(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” … . If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the mitigating factor to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism … .

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court should not have denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure as premature, but instead, should have addressed the merits of the application … . People v Powell, 2019 NY Slip Op 05170, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

,

THE TERM ‘AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE’ DOES NOT MANDATE THAT AN OFFENDER WITH A PRIOR SEX-CRIME FELONY BE CLASSIFIED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, BOTH COUNTY COURT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL MISUNDERSTOOD THE TERM (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that both County Court and defense counsel misunderstood the meaning of “automatic override” in the context of whether an offender who has a prior felony sex-crime conviction mandates a level three classification:

… [T]he use of the words “automatically” or “automatic override” does not mandate that a particular individual be classified as a risk level three sex offender; rather, the “automatic” nature of the override results in a presumptive risk level three classification — a classification from which a court indeed may depart based upon the evidence presented … . Thus, “the application of the override for a prior felony sex crime is presumptive, not mandatory or automatic” … , and “[t]reating the presumptive override as mandatory is a ground for reversal” … .  …

Defense counsel’s misunderstanding of the override — as evidenced by his erroneous statement that defendant’s prior felony conviction for a sex crime resulted in “an automatic override” to a risk level three classification — deprived defendant of the opportunity to present factors in support of a downward departure; similarly, County Court’s misapplication of the override — premised upon the court’s mistaken belief that “a mandatory override to a risk level [three] status” was “required” — foreclosed any inquiry into whether the presumptive risk level three classification was in fact warranted … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 04060, Third Dept 5-22-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS ON A GROUND OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s SORA risk assessment, determined that the judge’s assessing points on a ground of which defendant was not given prior notice was a violation of due process. The issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice (there was no objection at the SORA hearing):

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine his or her risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the risk level assessment” . As a result, “[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned” … , and “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . Here, neither the Board nor the People requested the assessment of points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct on the ground that defendant engaged in three or more acts of sexual contact with the victim over a period of at least two weeks … . At the conclusion of the SORA hearing, however, the court proceeded to assign additional points under that category on the ground that the grand jury testimony of the victim’s mother established that there was a third uncharged incident of sexual contact. Defendant was never provided any notice that points would be assessed as a result of a third uncharged incident and thus was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the court’s risk level assessment. People v Chrisley, 2019 NY Slip Op 03505, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS NEARLY 17 AND NO FORCE WAS INVOLVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure under risk level guidelines:

Here, the Board recommended a downward departure on the ground set forth in the above guidelines. Significantly, the victim was to turn 17 only two months after the incident and reported that no force was used and that she was a willing participant. Moreover, the victim had various communications with defendant on Facebook and spent time with him prior to the incident, which appears to have been their only sexual encounter. Notably, County Court declined to grant a downward departure on the basis that defendant had already benefited from the victim’s consent by obtaining a light criminal sentence. Clearly, this was not an appropriate factor to be considered under the guidelines. Therefore, under the circumstances presented, we find that defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of mitigating factors not taken into account by the guidelines and that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure … . Consequently, defendant’s total risk score of 90, which presumptively placed him in the risk level two classification, should be reduced by the 25 points allocable to risk factor 2 (sexual contact with victim), giving him a total risk score of 65 and placing him in the risk level one classification. People v Secor, 2019 NY Slip Op 02759, Third Dept 4-11-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED 20 POINTS FOR A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, PROOF OF A SECOND INSTANCE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WAS INSUFFICIENT, AN ALLEGATION IN AN INDICTMENT IS NOT, BY ITSELF, EVIDENCE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant should not have been assessed 20 points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct, noting that a reference in an indictment is not sufficient proof:

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of having sexual intercourse with the victim and claimed that he only had sex with the victim once. The People presented a sworn statement given to the police by the victim’s mother in which she recounts that, when she confronted the victim concerning her relationship with defendant, the victim told her that they “had sex two times.” Even assuming that this statement constitutes reliable hearsay … there is no indication by the victim as to when the acts of sexual contact occurred. Although the case summary states that the presentence investigation report reflects that acts of sexual contact occurred in May 2013 and September 2013, the only reference to a September 2013 act in that report is when it lists the charges contained in the indictment. Notably, “the fact that an offender was arrested or indicted for an offense is not, by itself, evidence that the offense occurred” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]). Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record regarding when the second act of sexual contact occurred, we cannot say that there is clear and convincing evidence that two sexual acts occurred that were separated by at least 24 hours … . People v Hinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02184, Third Dept 3-21-18

 

,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENDERS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR ONE OF THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED IN THE EXECUTIVE LAW AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, SINCE PETITIONER, WHO WAS A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WAS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, THE SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION DID NOT APPLY TO HIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, disagreeing with the 4th Department, determined that the restriction in the Executive Law prohibiting a sex offender from living within 1000 feet of a school only applied if the sentence being served at the time of release on parole is for one of the offenses enumerated in the statute. Defendant had previously been convicted of a sex offense and had been adjudicated a level three sex offender. But the offense for which he was incarcerated at the time of his release (burglary) is not an enumerated offense:

… [T]he statute is unambiguous and interpret it in the manner advanced by him. In this regard, we read “such person” as plainly and unequivocally referring to “a person serving a sentence for an offense defined in [Penal Law articles 130, 135 or 263 or Penal Law § 255.25, § 255.26 or 255.27]” (Executive Law § 259-c [14]). We are unpersuaded by respondent’s contention that “such person” in Executive Law § 259-c (14) can be rationally read to refer only to “a person” or “a person serving a sentence” as stated in the beginning of the statute and without regard to that part of the statute specifying various offenses. Based on the foregoing, we find that the school-grounds restriction provided in Executive Law § 259-c (14) applies either to (1) an offender serving one of the enumerated offenses whose victim was under 18 years old, or (2) an offender serving one of the enumerated offenses who was designated a risk level three sex offender. Because petitioner was not serving a sentence for an offense delineated in Executive Law § 259-c (14), the statute does not apply to him. People v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2019 NY Slip Op 01267, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

,

SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN PEOPLE V GILLOTTI (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent the matter back to the SORA court for further consideration of the request for a downward department where defendant was convicted of statutory rape:

In People v Gillotti (23 NY3d 841 [2014]), the Court of Appeals outlined a three-step process for determining whether to grant a defendant’s request for a downward departure. First, the hearing court is to determine whether alleged mitigating circumstances are “of a kind or degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines”… . If so, the court applies a preponderance of the evidence standard (id. at 863) to determine whether the defendant has proven the existence of those circumstances … . Finally, if the first two steps are satisfied, the court must “exercise its discretion by weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants” a downward departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual reoffense … .

While not entirely clear on this point, the decision of the hearing court in this case suggests that, in this case of statutory rape, the court considered itself bound, as a matter of law, to conclude that the various details of the offense urged as mitigating circumstances by defendant were adequately accounted for by the guidelines. Thus, the court appeared to consider itself unable to engage in the discretionary weighing prescribed in Gillotti’s third step. To the extent that the court acted based on this reasoning, it operated on an inaccurate premise that is contradicted by numerous cases that have granted downward departures in a similar context … , as well as the Guidelines themselves (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 9 [2006]).

“In cases of statutory rape, the Board has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … . Accordingly, the fact that in such a case the offender is not assessed any points for force or injury should not be the end of the discussion of whether to grant a downward departure. People v Soto, 2019 NY Slip Op 01184, First Dept 2-19-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY INCREASED THE RISK OF REOFFENSE, APPELLATE DIVISION EXERCISED ITS OWN DISCRETION AND REDUCED DEFENDANT’S RISK LEVEL FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant should have been adjudicated a level one, not a level two risk:

Although defendant was diagnosed with PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] and may have sustained a TBI traumatic brain injury], the record is devoid of evidence that any such mental impairment “is causally related to a[ ] risk of reoffense” … . …

Nor is the continuing nature of the crime sufficient to support the upward departure because, even if additional points were assessed for risk factor 4, i.e., continuing course of sexual misconduct, defendant’s total risk factor score would not result in defendant’s classification as a presumptive level two risk … . Further, there is no basis for an upward departure where, as here, the alleged aggravating factor is adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines … . Finally, although we conclude that defendant’s actions in taking the victim across state lines constitute an aggravating factor that is, “as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” … , we further conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure based on that factor under the circumstances of this case. We therefore substitute our own discretion … . People v Logsdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 00998, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER WAIVED HIS PRESENCE AT THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT HEARING, ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, exercising its interest of justice appellate jurisdiction, determined the evidence that defendant waived his presence at the SORA risk assessment hearing was insufficient. A new hearing was ordered:

A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing… . “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . Reliable hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit, is admissible to establish waiver … . Here, the sole “evidence” that the defendant waived the right to be present was the statement by the court that it was informed off-the-record by the New York City Police Department Sex Offender Monitoring Unit that the defendant resided at an address in Manhattan and that notice of the hearing was sent to that address and not returned as undeliverable. There was no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forgo his presence at the hearing … . The fact that defense counsel had “no evidence to indicate” that the defendant did not receive notice of the hearing was not sufficient to indicate a waiver. People v Barney, 2019 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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