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

Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor

The Court of Appeals determined that the “number of victims” risk factor (risk factor 3) under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) properly included “sexual conduct” that did not amount to SORA level sex offenses and which involved “webcam chats:”

Given that the Guidelines do not mention a SORA level offense in risk factor 3, but instead address the more general term, “sexual conduct,” we agree with the People that the conduct does not have to amount to a SORA level offense in order to be considered. Furthermore, the child can still be a victim under risk factor 3 even though the defendant and the child were not in the same room, but were communicating through a webcam … . People v Izzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07576, CtApp 10-20-15

 

,

Failure to Turn Over to the Defendant Grand Jury Minutes Use by the Judge in SORA Risk Calculation Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the failure to turn over to the defendant grand jury minutes used by judge in the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceedings was a violation of due process. However, in light of the other evidence, the error was harmless. The Court of Appeals explained the application of due process protections to SORA proceedings:

It is well established that sex offenders are entitled to certain due process protections at their risk level classification proceedings (see … Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456 [SD NY 1998]). Doe, for example, recognized that, although “the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as those required in a plenary criminal or civil trial . . . the consequences of registration and notification under the Act are sufficiently serious to warrant more than mere summary process” (Doe, 3 F Supp 2d at 470 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Accordingly, that court held that in order to satisfy due process concerns, the offender must be afforded prehearing discovery of the documentary evidence relating to his or her proposed risk level adjudication (see Doe, 3 F Supp 2d at 472).

Likewise, we have observed that “[t]he bedrock of due process is notice and opportunity to be heard” … . * * *

In keeping with our precedent, the Correction Law requires that defendant is entitled to prehearing access to the documents relied upon by the Board in reaching a risk level recommendation (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]…). Although the statute may not expressly state that defendant is likewise entitled to any materials submitted by the District Attorney in meeting its burden of establishing the facts supporting a risk level determination by clear and convincing evidence, the same due process concerns are presented in that context. Moreover, broad disclosure is consistent with Doe’s recognition that an offender should be accorded discovery “of all papers, documents and other material relating to his proposed level and manner of notification” (3 F Supp 2d at 472). People v Baxin, 2015 NY Slip Op 07530, CtApp 10-15-14

 

, ,

Upward Departure from Level One to Three Not Warranted by the Evidence

The Second Department reversed the SORA court, finding that the People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted. The upward departure was erroneously based upon defendant’s psychiatric history, the place of the offense (a group home), a parole violation ten years before the sex offense and two older bench warrants. The court explained the “upward departure” analytical criteria and reduced the defendant’s risk level from three (the highest) to one (the lowest):

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 [SORA] [G]uidelines” … . In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, the court must engage in a three-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the presence of that factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart from that risk level … . If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Here, the People did not meet their burden at the hearing. The People contended that the defendant’s psychiatric history and the fact that the defendant’s sex offense was committed in a group home constituted aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines. The People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s psychiatric history was related to his risk of reoffense … . Additionally, they failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the particular setting of the defendant’s crime was an aggravating factor not taken into account under the Guidelines … . Finally, as the defendant contends, the court erred in sua sponte basing its decision to depart from the presumptive risk level on his parole violation occurring 10 years before he committed the sex offense and on two bench warrants, issued 14 and 18 years before he committed the sex offense. Those grounds for departure had never been raised, and the defendant was never afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether they were proper grounds for departure … . In any event, it was not established by clear and convincing evidence that those circumstances were relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense … . People v Manougian, 2015 NY Slip Op 07484, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

,

Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment of Points Against Defendant for Drug Abuse

The Second Department determined points for drug abuse should not have been assessed against defendant based solely on a “marijuana” convictions:

… [T]he hearing court erred in assessing points under risk factor 11 (Drug or Alcohol Abuse) based solely on the fact that the defendant’s criminal history includes convictions for the possession and sale of marijuana. Under risk factor 11, possession or sale of marijuana does not, in itself, amount to drug abuse … . Since the People presented no evidence that the defendant had ever used, much less abused, drugs or alcohol, the evidence offered by the People was insufficient to satisfy their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had “a substance abuse history or was abusing drugs and or alcohol at the time of the offense”.. . People v Velazquez, 2015 NY Slip Op 06323, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined defendant was entitled to access to all the documents reviewed by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) in connection with the Board’s recommendation that defendant’s classification remain at risk level 3.  However, County Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment to allow defendant to gain access to missing documents (two emails) was not an abuse of discretion. The record evidence in support of the denial of the modification was overwhelming:

Section 168-o (4), applicable when a petitioner seeks modification of the risk level, does not contain any language entitling a petitioner to pre-hearing discovery, but simply provides that a petitioner has a right to submit “any information relevant to the review” (Correction Law § 169-o [2]). Further, the right to petition the sentencing court to be “relieved of any further duty to register” under Correction Law § 168-o (1) does not permit the court to review the correctness of the initial risk level determination (see Correction Law § 168-g [4]…). While there are statutory differences in the two [*5]proceedings, we agree with defendant that the procedural due process rights, in regard to the requested documents, were the same. Thus, defendant was entitled to access to the documents.

Nonetheless, it is well-settled that the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court … . “When the protection of fundamental rights has been involved in requests for adjournments, that discretionary power has been more narrowly construed” … . Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in failing to adjourn the hearing to gather the two emails. People v Lashway, 2015 NY Slip Op 04877, CtApp 6-11-15

 

,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Should Not Have Been Considered in SORA Risk Assessment—Criteria for an Upward Departure Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been considered in determining the defendant’s risk level. The court explained the proper procedure for considering an upward departure: … “[T]he County Court upwardly departed without following the required three analytical steps of determining, first, whether an aggravating factor exists as a matter of law, second, whether the People have adduced clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support of that aggravating factor, and third, whether, in the court’s discretion, the totality of the circumstances warrant the upward departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism …”. People v Ruland,  2015 NY Slip Op 04464, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Upward Departure Proper In Light of Felony Conviction Not Considered in the Risk Assessment–Criteria for Upward Departure Explained In Some Detail

The Second Department determined County Court properly departed (upward) from the presumptive risk level based upon a felony conviction which pre-dated the sexual offenses considered in the risk assessment. The Second Department explained in some detail the criteria for an upward departure:

A court is permitted to depart from the presumptive risk level if “special circumstances” warrant departure (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (id. at 4…). In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, a SORA court must engage in a multi-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the existence of that aggravating factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04465, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only One SORA Disposition for the “Current Offenses” (Which Included the Offenses from Both Counties) Can Be Held

The Defendant was convicted (by guilty pleas) of sex offenses committed in two counties.  The two district attorney offices coordinated the defendant’s sentences to run concurrently.  Prior to defendant’s release a SORA hearing was held in one of the two counties, taking into account all of the offenses to which defendant pled guilty.  When defendant was notified the second county had scheduled a SORA hearing he filed a motion to dismiss the second proceeding, arguing it was unauthorized by SORA and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The Second Department agreed and dismissed the second proceeding.  The decision includes a substantive discussion of statutory interpretation and the purposes and application of the Sex Offender Registration Act:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to charges contained in accusatory instruments filed in two different counties, two in Queens County and one in Richmond County. Nonetheless,… all of those offenses constituted “Current Offenses” for the purpose of determining the defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA and, indeed, were considered as such by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, in conducting their SORA assessment.

The only reasonable interpretation of the statute and Guidelines, and the one that most effectuates SORA’s purpose, is that only one SORA “disposition” may be made per “Current Offense,” or group of “Current Offenses.” Once a court has rendered “an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” and submitted such order to the Division (Correction Law § 168-d[3]), the Division has all the information it needs to create a file for the defendant and add it to the registry (see Correction Law § 168-b[1]). In this case, once the Division received the SORA order from Richmond County, it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of “protect[ing] the public from” this particular sex offender … . People v Cook, 2015 NY Slip Op 04295, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

,

Court Not Required to Obtain a New Risk Assessment Instrument After People Filed a Petition for an Upward Modification Based Upon a New Offense Committed In Violation of Defendant’s Probation

Re: the People’s petition for upward modification, the Second Department determined County Court was not required to obtain a new Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) after the defendant committed a “new” sex crime in violation of his probation.  The petition for upward modification was properly sent to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) and the Board properly responded by letter:

Correction Law § 168-o specifies that, upon the receipt of such a petition, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the board and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o[4]). The County Court followed this procedure and received an “updated recommendation” from the Board, in the form of a letter. The RAI, an “objective assessment instrument” created by the Board to assess an offender’s “presumptive risk level” … was designed to assist the courts in reaching an initial SORA determination. Indeed, if a new RAI was completed upon the filing of the People’s petition, it would be almost identical to the initial RAI, in which 10 out of the 15 risk factors addressed the subject sex offense and crimes committed prior to that offense … . Thus, the County Court was not required to obtain a new RAI from the Board in considering the People’s petition for an upward modification pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(3). People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04108, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Conviction In a Military Tribunal of “Assault with Intent to Commit Rape” Was Not a “Sex Offense” Under New York Law—However, the Conviction Could Be Considered Under the “Prior Criminal History” Risk Assessment Category

The Second Department determined that conviction of “assault with intent to commit rape” in a military tribunal should not have been as a “prior sex crime” to determine defendant’s risk level.  The offense did not qualify as a “sex offense” under New York law and did not include all the elements of any New York sex offense.  The conviction, however, could be considered as “a prior criminal history” in the risk assessment:

…[T]he military offense of which the defendant was convicted did not qualify as a “sex offense,” as defined in Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii) … . Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s military offense does not “include[ ] all of the essential elements” (Correction Law § 168-a[2][d][i]) of attempted rape in the first degree under New York law, and thus does not qualify as a “sex offense” on that basis.

Although the defendant’s prior military offense of assault with intent to commit rape [*2]does not qualify as a sex offense, it does evidence a prior criminal history, People v Lancaster, 2015 NY Slip Op 04106, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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