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

A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

The Third Department determined a sexual offense which defendant admitted committing but with which he was never charged could not be considered in the under risk factor 8:

… [W]e agree with defendant that 10 points were improperly assessed for risk factor 8, his “[a]ge at first sex crime.” The People submitted evidence that the victim had recounted to police that her first sexual contact with defendant had occurred in June 2011, when defendant was 19 years old and she was 13 years old; defendant admitted that this incident had occurred but claimed that the victim had been the aggressor. As defendant pointed out at the SORA hearing, however, he was never charged with or convicted of a crime consisting of that conduct. Under the criminal history section of the RAI, 10 points may be assessed under risk factor 8 where “[t]he offender committed a sex offense, that subsequently resulted in an adjudication or conviction for a sex crime, at age 20 or less” … . The commentary similarly instructs, with regard to risk factor 8, that “criminal convictions [and] youthful offender adjudications  . . . are to be considered in scoring this category, as well as [risk factors] 9 [number and nature of prior crimes] and 10 [recency of prior felony or sex crime]” … . To that end, the commentary specifically indicates that, for purposes of the criminal history section of the RAI, “the term ‘crime’ includes criminal convictions [and] youthful offender adjudications” and that “[c]onvictions for Penal Law offenses and unclassified misdemeanors should be considered” … . The commentary further clarifies that, “[w]here an offender has admitted committing an act of sexual misconduct for which there has been no such judicial determination, it should not be used in scoring his [or her] criminal history” … . …

While proof of the commission of a prior sex crime committed by an offender at age 20 or under that did not result in a conviction or adjudication may be relied upon to argue in favor of an upward departure … , the People did not request this alternative relief from County Court at any point. People v Current, 2017 NY Slip Op 01415, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)

, ,

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the defendant was aware of the victim’s age when establishing the relationship for sexual purposes. The victim indicated she was 18 in her online profile:

… [I]n enacting SORA, the Legislature expressly stated that it was especially concerned with “predatory acts”: “[t]he legislature finds that the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders, especially those sexually violent offenders who commit predatory acts characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, and . . . the protection of the public from these offenders, is of paramount concern or interest to the government” … . This language convinces us that “for the primary purpose of victimization,” as used in risk factor 7 and relevant to this case, requires proof that the defendant knew when establishing or promoting the relationship for sexual purposes that the victim was underage. In cases where the SORA offense is a crime because of the victim’s age, risk factor 7 does not apply to offenders who may have established the relationship for sexual purposes, but without having reason to know the victim’s age at that time … . People v Jordan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08212, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT)

, ,

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING.

The Second Department determined the SORA court properly considered grand jury testimony in assessing the risk level:

The defendant argues that the People’s disclosure of grand jury minutes in this case violated CPL 190.25(4), citing Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County (58 NY2d 436, 444, 446), which ruled that grand jury minutes cannot be disclosed in a civil proceeding without a demonstration of a “compelling and particularized need” and that it is “impossible” to make a case without the grand jury minutes. However, this argument has been uniformly rejected by the courts … . Correction Law § 168-n(3) states that the court in a SORA proceeding “shall review any victim’s statement,” which includes a victim’s testimony before the grand jury … . Grand jury testimony constitutes reliable hearsay that is sufficient for SORA purposes … . Where grand jury testimony is “undermined by other more compelling evidence,” it need not be credited unless corroborated by other evidence … . However, in this case, no conflicting evidence was submitted. People v Harmon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08210, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/EVIDENCE (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRAION ACT (SORA) (GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)/GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (SORA PROCEEDING, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING)

, , ,

SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s risk level assessment, determined defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment of points:

A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment … . Not only did County Court fail to give defendant notice of its intention to sua sponte assess points for the category of use of violence, it affirmatively misled defendant by its assurance that it had already “made a decision . . . regarding a point score,” which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process … . Considering the fact that defendant was never aware of the potential of the assignment of such points until a point in time where he no longer had an opportunity to object — his only remaining opportunity to be heard being explicitly limited to arguing for a downward departure — he need not have taken any further action to preserve the issue for our review … . People v Griest, 2016 NY Slip Op 06907, 33rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

,

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)

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