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

15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure based upon a 15-year period during which defendant did not reoffend. Defendant’s SORA risk level was reduced from three to two:

In light of the purpose of SORA, which is to assess the risk that the offender poses while at liberty, lengthy periods during which the defendant has been at liberty after the offense are significant in determining the risk of reoffense and the danger posed in the event of reoffense …  . Since these periods are not taken into account in the risk assessment instrument (hereinafter the RAI), they are a permissible ground for departure … . Here, the defendant committed a sex offense in New Jersey in 1982. In the time between that crime and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2012, after the defendant returned to New York, he was incarcerated in New Jersey for approximately 15 years, and he was also at liberty for approximately the same amount of time without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we conclude that the RAI overstated the defendant’s risk of reoffense. People v Sotomayer, 2016 NY Slip Op 06482, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL)

,

RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE.

The Fourth Department reduced defendant sex offender’s risk level from three to two, finding that the assessment of 25 points for sexual contact with the victim overassessed the defendant’s risk to public safety. Defendant and the victim were close in age and the victim’s lack of consent was solely due to her age:

In light of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the relatively slight age difference between defendant and the victim, as well as the undisputed evidence that the victim’s lack of consent was premised only on her inability to consent by virtue of her age, we conclude in the exercise of our own discretion that the assessment of 25 points under the second risk factor, for sexual contact with the victim, results in an overassessment of defendant’s risk to public safety … . People v George, 2016 NY Slip Op 05482, 4th Dept 7-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)/SORA (RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE)

, ,

SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined the SORA court did not err when it assessed 30 points for defendant's prior conviction (involving a different victim) for endangering the welfare of a child which did not involve a sexual offense. Based upon the language of the guidelines. the majority concluded the non-sexual offense could properly be considered subject to a possible downward departure. Here the SORA court, taking into consideration all the relevant evidence, was deemed justified in rejecting a downward departure:

As we recently stated, “[i]n determining whether to depart from a presumptive risk level, the hearing court weighs the aggravating or mitigating factors alleged by the departure-requesting party to assess whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a departure is warranted” … . Here, the only mitigating factor defendant presented to the SORA court was that the prior endangering the welfare of a child conviction was not sexual in nature. Although the SORA court considered this argument when deciding whether to downwardly depart, it certainly was not required to consider the mitigating factor in a vacuum without considering any aggravating factors that would weigh against a downward departure … . In this case, there were numerous aggravating factors not adequately captured by the [risk assessment] that countered defendant's argument for a downward departure. Therefore, the SORA court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the “totality of the circumstances” did not warrant a downward departure because such a departure would have resulted in an “under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Sincerbeaux, 2016 NY Slip Op 05062, CtApp 6-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/SORA (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)

,

FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined a federal conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was not a qualifying offense under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant had been convicted in Michigan of a qualifying offense, but was not subject to post-release supervision upon release. Where there is no post-release supervision, a defendant is assessed 15 points under the SORA risk analysis. Defendant argued that, because he was subject to federal post-release supervision for failure to register, the 15 points should not be assessed. The First Department held the only relevant offense was the Michigan offense, requiring the 15 point assessment. People v Reid, 2016 NY Slip Op 04366, 1st Dept 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING OFFENSE FOR A SORA RISK ANALYSIS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 15 POINT REDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS SUBJECT TO POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE)

,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to justify and upward departure from a Level Two to a Level Three sex offender. Defendant restricted the freedom of a child who subsequently was either released or escaped when her friend, who had escaped, called for her. Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. County Court's upward departure was, in the opinion of the majority, based upon speculation about defendant's motives and intentions, which did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of aggravating circumstances not taken into account by the risk assessment:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in granting the People's request for an upward departure from a presumptive level two risk to a level three risk based upon its assumption that the victim would have suffered greater harm had the other child not intervened and allowed the victim to escape. While it may be reasonable to assume that defendant had sinister intentions when he lured two young children into his home, such an assumption does not constitute the requisite “clear and convincing evidence that there exist aggravating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines”… . People v Baldwin, 2016 NY Slip Op 03609, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SORA (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/UPWARD DEPARTURE (SORA, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/EVIDENCE (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)

,

LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissent, determined County Court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a statutory override for infliction of serious injury, adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender, despite the fact defendant was not charged with a sex offense. By statute, a defendant convicted of the unlawful imprisonment of a child is deemed a sex offender, even when no sex offense was committed. Here the child was assaulted (tortured) and seriously injured over the course of a five-day ordeal, but no sex offense was involved. The points assessed under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) criteria rose only to a level one. Because of the extreme violence, County Court applied the statutory override:

… [T]he application of the override for “infliction of serious physical injury,” “automatically result[s] in a presumptive risk assessment of level [three]” (Guidelines at 3). Therefore, properly framed, defendant’s argument is that the SORA court abused its discretion in declining to engage in a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three. We disagree.

Defendant’s sole argument to the SORA court was that the absence of a sexual component to his crime, in and of itself, warranted a level one adjudication. That factor, the existence of which was not in dispute, was considered [when] the Board assessed him 0 points for risk factor 2 — Sexual Contact with Victim. Defendant made no other argument of a mitigating factor to the SORA court in support of a downward departure. In the exercise of its discretion, the SORA court declined to depart from the presumptive risk level three. People v Howard, 2016 NY Slip Op 03415, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SORA (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)

,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


, ,

IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENDANT, WAS ERROR, UNDER THE FACTS, IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the SORA court's reliance on the victim's grand jury testimony, which was not provided to defense counsel, did not deprive defendant of due process of law. 20 points were assessed based upon the victim's helplessness. At the grand jury, the victim testified she was asleep (i.e., helpless) when the abuse began. Because evidence disclosed to the defendant amply notified defendant of the victim's claim to have been asleep, any error in relying on the undisclosed grand jury minutes was harmless:

The Court of Appeals was recently presented with the issue of whether a defendant's due process rights were violated when the hearing court relied, in part, upon grand jury minutes that were not disclosed to the defense in reaching the defendant's SORA risk level determination (see People v Baxin, 26 NY3d 6). The Court found that “[g]iven that [the] defendant is entitled to broad discovery of the evidence that is used against him in order to be able to defend himself . . . the failure to disclose the grand jury minutes was a due process violation” … . Significantly, the Court concluded that, given the overwhelming evidence which was disclosed to the defendant in support of the same risk factor, the error was harmless … . It further recognized that “[t]his is not to say that grand jury minutes must be disclosed to the defendant in every SORA proceeding as a matter of course. It remains within the hearing court's discretion to limit the release of such minutes” … .

Guided by these principles, even assuming that the defendant should have had disclosure of the subject grand jury minutes, as in Baxin, any error in failing to disclose them was harmless. There was overwhelming, unchallenged evidence, which provided the requisite clear and convincing evidence supporting the assessment of 20 points … . The record on appeal reveals that the defendant was amply notified through statements contained in the case summary, the presentence report, and other disclosed evidence of the victim's version of the facts and, specifically, her account that she was asleep when the abuse began. Indeed, defense counsel specifically challenged the assessment of points for physical helplessness based upon the victim's account of being asleep when the sexual abuse began. The portion of the victim's grand jury testimony relied upon by the SORA Court, namely, that the victim was asleep at the beginning of the incident, is the exact account contained in the case summary, which was fully disclosed to the defendant. Under these circumstances, the victim's grand jury testimony was cumulative to the disclosed evidence … . People v Wells, 2016 NY Slip Op 02978, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


, , ,

DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT ACADEMIC; UPWARD DEPARTURE BASED UPON THE EXTREME VIOLENCE OF THE CRIME PROPER.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined the fact defendant had been deported did not render his appeal of a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) level 2 risk assessment academic ( a matter of first impression in the department). The court further determine the SORA court properly increased defendant's risk level based on the extreme violence of the crime, even though the guidelines took violence into account:

… [T]he People have failed to demonstrate that the defendant's involuntary absence from New York renders review of the order designating him a level two offender academic. As a result of his level two designation, the defendant's name, photograph, the details of his crime, and other information can be accessed online at the Division website, notwithstanding the fact that he has been deported … . The outcome of an appeal such as this, which concerns a defendant's risk level designation, will have certain practical consequences with respect to SORA registration requirements, such as the duration of the posting of this information, which is already on the website (see Correction Law § 168-h). * * *

While the SORA Guidelines do take into account the use of violence under risk factor 1, the People's proof demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the SORA Guidelines did not adequately take into account the true nature of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant's conduct tended to show a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community. The case summary indicates that the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the face, placed a knife to her throat, threatened to kill her, put his mouth on her breasts and vagina, attempted to place his penis in her mouth, and put his penis in her vagina against her will. Following the incident, which lasted several hours, the police recovered various items within the subject residence that were covered in blood, and the victim's face was both bruised and bloody.

Thus, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender. People v Shim, 2016 NY Slip Op 01818, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL, DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL ACADEMIC)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL, DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL ACADEMIC)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (USE OF EXTREME VIOLENCE WARRANTED UPWARD DEPARTURE)

,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Can Not Be Used for the “Criminal History” Points Assessment

The sex offender risk classification was reversed because county court used a juvenile delinquency adjudication to calculate the “criminal history” points to be assessed. The Third Department noted that the juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be used for the “criminal history” calculation, but it can be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

… [B]ased on our recent holding in People v Shaffer (129 AD3d 54, 55-56 [2015]), County Court is precluded from using juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI [risk assessment instrument], although the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may still be “considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level” (id. at 56). People v Updyke, 2015 NY Slip Op 08481, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

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