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

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED A PREDICATE SEX OFFENDER BASED UPON A MICHIGAN CONVICTION OF “BREAKING AND ENTERING AN OCCUPIED DWELLING WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant should not have been classified as a predicate sex offender based upon a Michigan conviction of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree:

Supreme Court should not have, in effect, designated the defendant a predicate sex offender based upon his 1983 Michigan conviction. Where the prior conviction was in a jurisdiction other than New York State, the offense in the other jurisdiction must include all of the essential elements of a crime enumerated as a “sex offense” or “sexually violent offense” in the Correction Law or must require registration as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred  … . Although the crime of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree in Michigan is equivalent to the offense of burglary in the second degree in New York … , burglary is not classified by the Correction Law as a “sex offense” or a “sexually violent offense” … , and the People did not rely on the 1983 Michigan conviction as constituting a sexually motivated felony. Moreover, the crime of which the defendant was convicted in 1983 is not considered a sex offense requiring registration as a sex offender in Michigan … . Accordingly, the designation of the defendant as a predicate sex offender was improper … . People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 06181, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid but rejected her argument that she was exempt for SORA registration because she is the parent of the kidnapping victim, who had been adopted by a family:

The victim of the kidnapping was defendant’s biological child, who had been removed from defendant’s care more than eight years earlier following allegations of abuse concerning the victim’s sibling. Defendant surrendered her parental rights to both the victim and the victim’s sibling, and the children were adopted by a family.

“SORA defines sex offender’ to include any person who is convicted of’ any of a number of crimes listed in the statute . . . SORA requires all people included in this definition to register as sex offenders” … . The list of offenses provided in the statute includes “section 135.05, 135.10, 135.20 or 135.25 of [the Penal Law] relating to kidnapping offenses, provided the victim of such kidnapping . . . is less than seventeen years old and the offender is not the parent of the victim” … . Although we have not yet had the occasion to address whether a biological parent who has surrendered his or her parental rights and whose child has been adopted is entitled to the benefit of the parent exemption set forth in the SORA statute, in People v Brown (264 AD2d 12 [4th Dept 2000]), this Court determined that, in a prosecution for kidnapping, such a person could not assert as an affirmative defense that he or she was a relative of the victim … inasmuch as a biological parent’s status as a “parent” with respect to an adopted child was terminated ” in all respects’ ” by an order of adoption … . Applying that same reasoning here, we conclude that defendant, the biological mother of an adopted child who she kidnapped, is not a parent of the victim for the purposes of SORA, and thus defendant is not exempt from SORA registration. People v Weir, 2019 NY Slip Op 05896, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , ,

PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THE ISSUE SURVIVES THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for a violation of the Correction Law, determined that the plea allocution negated an essential element of the offense. Because the voluntariness of the plea was called into question the issue survived the failure to move to withdraw the plea and the waiver of appeal:

A sex offender is required to register with the Division “no later than ten calendar days after any change of address” and to pay a fee of ten dollars “each time such offender registers any change of address” (Correction Law § 168-f[4]). A sex offender who fails to so register within the required time period is guilty of a felony (seeCorrection Law § 168-t).

As the defendant contends, his factual allocution during the plea proceeding negated an essential element of the offense charged, thereby casting significant doubt upon his guilt. Specifically, the defendant indicated that he provided the Division with the address of a homeless shelter that he was using, although he acknowledged that there were some nights when he could not stay in the shelter. He explained “sometimes if you don’t get there in time all the beds are taken, so sometimes you get turned away.” On those days, the defendant asserted, he stayed at a friend’s house instead. These statements tended to demonstrate that the defendant did not, in fact, change his address and thus, was not required to notify the Division … . People v Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05428, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

THE LAW REQUIRING THAT SEX OFFENDERS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN AS APPLIED TO AN OFFENDER WHOSE SEX OFFENSES INVOLVED ADULTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined defendant sex offender, in this habeas corpus proceeding, was not entitled to release on parole on the ground that the law prohibiting him from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds was unconstitutional. The concurrence called into question the effects of the law. Petitioner’s sex offenses involved adults, not children:

… [A]lthough the open parole release date granted to petitioner cannot be revoked absent procedural due process, we are unpersuaded that he has a further “liberty interest [or] fundamental right . . . to be free from special conditions of parole” regarding his residence under either the Federal or the State Constitution … . …

… [P]etitioner has not satisfied his “heavy burden of showing that [Executive Law § 259-c (14)] is ‘so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes’ as to be irrational” … . Petitioner may or may not be correct when he says that the mandatory condition does not achieve its legitimate goals, but the argument that there are “better or wiser ways to achieve the law’s stated objectives” must be addressed to the Legislature … . Thus, the mandatory condition comports with substantive due process, and petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. People ex rel. Johnson v Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility, 2019 NY Slip Op 05359, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

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

 

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