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

UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL NOT AUTHORIZED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the upward departure from the presumptive risk level was not authorized. The facts were not discussed but the applicable law was clearly explained:

Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if “special circumstances” warrant a departure … . An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, that there exists an aggravating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines … .

“Under SORA, a court must follow three analytical steps to determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score. At the first step, the court must decide whether the aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged by a party seeking a departure are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “At the second step, the court must decide whether the party requesting the departure has adduced sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof in establishing that the alleged aggravating or mitigating circumstances actually exist in the case at hand. If the party applying for a departure surmounts the first two steps, the law permits a departure, but the court still has discretion to refuse to depart or to grant a departure” (id. [citations omitted]). If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to upwardly depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Under the circumstances presented, the People did not meet their burden of proof with respect to the first two requirements. Therefore, an upward departure was not authorized … . People v Cassarly, 2017 NY Slip Op 05251, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

,

FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department determine the steps taken to notify defendant of the SORA hearing were not adequate to ensure defendant was notified. Therefore defendant could not be deemed to have waived his presence at the hearing:

​

” A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing'” … . “[W]here there is a question as to whether the defendant’s failure to appear is deliberate, in order to establish a waiver, evidence must be presented that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of his right to be present, and that the hearing would be conducted in his absence” … .

Here, when defense counsel and the People initially appeared for the hearing, and the defendant failed to appear, the Supreme Court, recognizing its duty to ensure that any waiver of the defendant’s right to be present was voluntary, adjourned the matter to permit defense counsel to send a notice to the defendant, by certified mail, return-receipt requested. Defense counsel sent the letter, but never received a return receipt from the post office or a response from the defendant, with whom he had never met or consulted. Defense counsel did not indicate any efforts he made to determine whether his letter had been delivered, such as, by contacting the post office. Further, there was no evidence in the record that notice was sent to the defendant by the court, but, even presuming such [*2]notice was sent, there was no evidence as to whether the notice was delivered or returned. Nor was there evidence regarding how the court or defense counsel obtained the address to which notices were sent. Thus, as defense counsel asserted, there was reason to believe that the defendant may not have received notice of the hearing. Indeed, even the court acknowledged that possibility.

Since the record failed to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, the order must be reversed, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant. People v Jenkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 04869, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.

The Second Department determined the second risk assessment hearing should not have been held. Defendant had pled guilty to offenses in two counties and was given concurrent sentences. Using the same risk assessment instrument (RAI) one court (New York County) assessed defendant at level two and the second court (Rockland County) subsequently assessed defendant at level three. The Rockland County proceeding was dismissed:

​

… [T]he result reached by the County Court in the Rockland County SORA proceeding conflicted with the result reached by the Supreme Court in the New York County SORA proceeding even though the same RAI was utilized in both proceedings. Recently, the Court of Appeals instructed that in order to prevent conflicting conclusions based upon the same RAI, “one—and only one—sentencing court should render a risk level determination based on all conduct contained in the RAI” … . Accordingly, the Rockland County SORA proceeding must be dismissed … . People v Katz, 2017 NY Slip Op 04154, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD)

,

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been used to calculate his risk level under risk factor 9:

​

Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings (56 AD3d 1181 … , rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9.

Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9 renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is warranted … . People v Gibson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03355, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED IN VIRGINIA OF THE MURDER OF A 15-YEAR-OLD WITH NO SEXUAL COMPONENT, AND WHO WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA, NEED NOT REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN NEW YORK.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined requiring defendant to register as a sex offender in New York based upon the murder of a 15-year-old in Virginia violated defendant’s right to substantive due process. Defendant shot and killed his 15-year-old half sister when he was 19. There was no sexual component to the crime. Upon his release from prison after 25 years, defendant, under Virginia law, was required to register as a sex offender (based on the age of the victim). New York has no similar registration requirement. When defendant relocated to New York he was assessed a level three sex offender in a SORA proceeding:

​

…[T]he connection between defendant’s crime and the legislative purpose behind SORA is too attenuated to support finding a legitimate governmental interest in applying Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii) to defendant. The record does not establish a correlation between the murder of a victim under 15 years of age and the propensity to commit sexual offenses. Thus, the legislative purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders is not served by requiring defendant to register as a sex offender in New York pursuant to section 168-a(2)(d)(ii) solely because he is obligated to do so under a broader Virginia statute, which designates the murder of a person under the age of 15, without a sexual component, as an offense subject to registration in a registry that encompasses both sex crimes and crimes against minors.

Requiring such individuals to register as sex offenders in New York also diminishes the registry’s usefulness by including offenders who bear no meaningful relationship to SORA’s legislative purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that one who commits homicide of a minor in Virginia is more likely to commit a sex offense than one who commits homicide of a minor in New York. The statute also fails to consider the harm caused to the individual who is forced to register, even though he or she has committed a crime that has no sexual component. Being labeled as a sex offender does far more than impose a stigma to one’s reputation. It often results in the offender being subjected to social ostracism and abuse, and impedes the person’s ability to access schooling, employment, housing, and many other areas. People v Diaz, 2017 NY Slip Op 02915, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED IN VIRGINIA OF THE MURDER OF A 15-YEAR-OLD WITH NO SEXUAL COMPONENT, AND WHO WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA, NEED NOT REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN NEW YORK)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED IN VIRGINIA OF THE MURDER OF A 15-YEAR-OLD WITH NO SEXUAL COMPONENT, AND WHO WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA, NEED NOT REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN NEW YORK)

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 7, DEFENDANT HAD LONG-TERM NON-SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE VICTIMS BEFORE THE ABUSE STARTED, DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined defendant should not have been assessed points under risk factor 7. Risk factor 7 applies when a defendant establishes a relationship with a victim for the primary purpose of victimization. Here the victims were the children of defendant’s long-time friends. Defendant had long-term non-sexual relationships with the children before the abuse began:

The People bore the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that defendant promoted his relationship with one or more of the victims for the primary purpose of sexually abusing them (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]…). That burden was not met here. The record reflects that he had long-term, pre-existing relationships with the children, continued those relationships in the role of a close family friend who regularly spent substantial amounts of time with the children and their families, and did not begin to offend against them until the eldest child was approximately 11 years old … . Therefore, the evidence in this record does not support Supreme Court’s determination that defendant “promoted” his relationships with these children for purposes of victimization … , as opposed to redirecting his longstanding close and involved relationships with them in such a way as to allow for sexual abuse. People v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 02468, CtApp 3-30-17

 

,

WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR TWO SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined only one SORA risk assessment proceeding should have been held. Defendant had simultaneously pled guilty to crimes committed in two counties. All of the crimes were taken into consideration in the first SORA assessment proceeding:

Where, as here, a single RAI [risk assessment instrument] addressing all relevant conduct is prepared, the goal of assessing the risk posed by the offender is fulfilled by a single SORA adjudication. To hold otherwise — that is, to permit multiple risk level determinations based on conduct included in a single RAI — would result in redundant proceedings and constitute a waste of judicial resources. Here, for instance, once the Division of Criminal Justice Services was notified of the Richmond County SORA court’s determination, “it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of ‘protect[ing] the public from’ this particular sex offender” … . Any further proceedings then became duplicative. People v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 02467, CtApp 3-30-17

 

, ,

SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED.

The Fourth Department determined the language in the SORA guideline which allows a juvenile delinquency adjudication to be used to calculate points in the criminal history category should not be followed because it conflicts with provisions of the Family Court Act:

The risk assessment guidelines issued by the Board provide that a juvenile delinquency adjudication is considered a crime for purposes of assessing points under the criminal history section of the risk assessment instrument (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [Guidelines], at 6 [2006]). Family Court Act § 381.2 (1) provides, however, that neither the fact that a person was before Family Court for a juvenile delinquency hearing, nor any confession, admission or statement made by such a person is admissible as evidence against him or her in any other court. Section 380.1 (1) further provides that “[n]o adjudication under this article may be denominated a conviction and no person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent shall be denominated a criminal by reason of such adjudication.” Given this conflict between the Guidelines and the plain language of the Family Court Act, we agree with the [2nd] Department[ ] … and conclude that the Board “exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender’s criminal history” … . People v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 02323, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/FAMILY LAW (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED) 

,

ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS.

The Third Department noted an acknowledged anomaly in the risk assessment guidelines for child pornography that may result in the overestimation of the risk. Because the SORA court did not make any findings about the possible overestimation, the case was remitted:

The Court of Appeals has found that an anomaly exists in assessing points to child pornography offenders under risk factor 7 in the RAI, in that the absence of a previous relationship between the offender and children pictured in pornographic images may not normally heighten the risk that the offender presents to the community, whereas a situation in which “the offender and the children are acquainted would seem to present a greater threat to the community, not a lesser one” … . The Court further concluded that such an anomaly may result in an overestimation of a child pornography offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the public … . While the Court concluded that, despite the anomaly, the plain language of the guidelines of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders authorizes the assessment of points against child pornography offenders under risk factor 7, it further stated that, “in deciding a child pornography offender’s application for a downward departure, a [Sex Offender Registration Act] court should, in the exercise of its discretion, give particularly strong consideration to the possibility that adjudicating the offender in accordance with the guidelines point score and without departing downward might lead to an excessive level of registration” … .

In denying the request for a downward departure, County Court found that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7, but did not take into consideration the potential overestimation of defendant’s risk of reoffense and the danger to the public created by the assessment of those points. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for the court to determine whether such an overestimation was created and whether a downward departure is therefore warranted … . People v Kemp, 2017 NY Slip Op 01618, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/

, ,

INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

The Second Department determined the judge did not make a sufficient inquiry before allowing the sex offender to represent himself in this SORA proceeding:

Where a defendant makes a timely and unequivocal request to waive the right to counsel and represent herself or himself, “the trial court is obligated to conduct a searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” … . “A waiver is voluntarily made when the trial court advises the defendant and can be certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel have been impressed upon the defendant'” … . “A searching inquiry’ does not have to be made in a formulaic manner, . . . although it is better practice to ask the defendant about [her or] his age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver'” … . …

… [W]e conclude that the Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite searching inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent … . The court made only minimal inquiry into the defendant’s age, experience, intelligence, education, and exposure to the legal system, and did not explain the risk inherent in proceeding pro se or the advantages of representation by counsel. The court’s failure to conduct a searching inquiry renders the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel invalid and requires reversal … . People v Griffin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01577, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/ATTORNEYS (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/

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