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

Downward Departure Warranted in SORA Proceeding Where Victim’s Lack of Consent Was Solely By Virtue of Age

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the fact that the victim’s lack of consent to sexual intercourse was due solely to the inability to consent by virtue of age warranted a downward departure in a SORA proceeding. The court noted that, although the victim became pregnant, there was no evidence the defendant intended to make the victim pregnant, and the defendant pays child support and visits the child often:

…[T]he SORA Guidelines provide that “[a] court may choose to downwardly depart from the risk assessment in an appropriate case and in those instances where (i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [for sexual contact with the victim, risk factor 2] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety'” … . The evidence in this case proves the existence of the facts supporting this ground for departure.It is true, as our dissenting colleague points out, that there was an 11-year difference in age between the defendant and the victim, and that the victim became pregnant as a result of the defendant’s crime. We share our colleague’s concern about these facts and about the significance of the age differential … . Nevertheless, the purposes of the SORA Guidelines are to assess the risk that a sex offender will reoffend and the offender’s threat to public safety (see Correction Law § 168-l[5]). There is no evidence here that the defendant committed his crime with the intention that the victim become pregnant, so the fact that a pregnancy did result is irrelevant to the SORA risk level determination. Moreover, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant pays child support to the victim. While, as our dissenting colleague points out, payment of child support is a legal obligation, it was undisputed at the hearing that the defendant not only pays child support, but that he also regularly travels a significant distance to visit the child. People v Marsh, 2014 NY Slip Op 02274, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

,

Brutality of Offense Warranted an Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined the brutality involved in the offense warranted an upward departure:

…[I]n light of the extreme brutality and violence of the defendant’s conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, which included holding the victim hostage in her home over the course of approximately 13 hours, repeatedly threatening to stab her with a knife and burn her to death with gasoline, raping her twice, locking her in a closet, choking and punching her, and engaging in a standoff with the police, the County Court properly determined that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary … . Upon making such a determination, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure from a level two to a level three sex offender … . People v Soevyn, 2014 NY Slip Op 02275, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

,

No Basis in Law for “Automatic Override” Based Upon a Prior Sex Crime Conviction to Raise Sex Offender Status Above the Presumptive Level (SORA)

The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s determination that defendant, who was a presumptive level two sex offender, should be classified as a level three offender on the basis of a prior felony conviction of a sex crime.  The County Court described the authority for the upward departure as an “automatic override.”  The Fourth Department noted that an “automatic override” does not exist in this context and explained the criteria for an upward departure:

Based upon the total risk factor score of 85 points on the risk assessment instrument, defendant was presumptively classified as a level two risk. County Court determined that defendant was a level three risk based on the automatic override for a prior felony conviction of a sex crime. That was error. “[N]o basis in law exists for . . . an automatic override [to] increase[] defendant’s presumptive risk level two designation to risk level three” … . “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “ ‘There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance[s] to warrant an upward or downward departure’ ” … . People v Moore, 357, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Burden Is on Defendant in SORA Reclassification Proceeding/Fact that Defendant Was Not Provided With All the Documents Reviewed by the Board Did Not Violate Due Process

In a SORA reclassification proceeding, the Third Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant was not deprived of due process by the SORA court’s denial of an adjournment for the purpose gathering all the documents reviewed by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in making its updated recommendation.  The Third Department noted that, unlike in the initial SORA proceeding where the burden of proof is on the People, in a reclassification proceeding the burden is on the defendant:

Correction Law § 168-o (2) provides a sex offender who is required to register pursuant to SORA with the opportunity to periodically seek a downward modification of his or her risk level classification.  However, the burden falls upon the sex offender to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a modification is warranted (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion… . * * *

We do not take issue with the argument that defendant was entitled to discovery of the materials in question.  However, all discovery is subject to certain limitations and the court has “considerable discretion to supervise the discovery process” … .  In our view, the question before us distills to whether County Court abused its discretion in refusing to adjourn the hearing in order for defendant to belatedly gain access to the requested documents. In this regard, County Court’s decision to deny defendant’s request must be evaluated with full consideration of the attendant circumstances before the court, including the timeliness thereof …, and we cannot agree that reversal is required based solely on the fact that defendant did not obtain the requested materials prior to the hearing. People v Lashway, 514859, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

,

Abstention from Alcohol While Incarcerated and Exemplary Prison Record Did Not Warrant Downward Departure Re: Sex Offender Status/Basics of Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Proceedings Explained In Some Depth

The First Department affirmed the sex offender status determined by Supreme Court, rejecting the arguments that an exemplary prison record and abstention from alcohol during a long incarceration warranted a downward departure.  The court took the trouble to explain some of the basics of a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) determination:

In assessing a sex offender’s danger to the community, and therefore, its recommendation to the court hearing a SORA application, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (BOSE) must consider 15 statutory factors, applying them in accordance with the Risk Assessment Guidelines developed to assess an individual applicant’s risk of a repeat offense (Correction Law § 168—l[5]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 3 [2006]). The evaluation is made using a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI), identifying each factor which, if applicable, is assigned a numerical value. If a particular factor is not applicable, it is assessed at zero. The values are then tallied, resulting in a recommended risk assessment which is considered as presumptively correct at the SORA hearing before the court … .

One of the factors BOSE considers is “whether the sex offender’s conduct was found to be characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, associated with drugs or alcohol” … (Correction Law § 168-1[5][a][ii]). The guidelines clarify that if the individual has a history of drug or alcohol abuse “or was abusing drugs and or alcohol at the time of the offense,” 15 points will be assessed in that category (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15). Pursuant to the guidelines, BOSE or the court may choose to score zero points in this category, if the drug and/or alcohol abuse is “in the distant past, but [the defendant’s] more recent history is one of prolonged abstinence” … .

Since defendant admittedly committed his crime while intoxicated, this alone supports the 15 point assessment made against him in this category … . Thus the issue turns on whether his prolonged abstinence from alcohol use, while incarcerated, provides a basis for a 15 point reduction in this category. We find that it does not.

We have consistently held that even when alcohol use in the commission of the crime is remote in time, and the defendant has abstained from alcohol use for a prolonged period while incarcerated, such remoteness and abstinence are unreliable predictors of the risk for re-offense post-release, or to the threat posed by the sex offender to public safety … .   * * *

The SORA court also providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for a discretionary downward departure to a level 2 based upon claims that he had an exemplary record while incarcerated, has shown remorse for his crime, and is now a productive member of society * * *.

We emphasize that a SORA risk-level determination is not an extended form of punishment for the sex crime committed, but a collateral consequence of the conviction intended to protect the public at large from the possibility of future crime … . A departure from a sex offender’s presumptive risk level is generally warranted only where “there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4…)… .  People v Watson, 2013 NY Slip Op 08379, 1st Dept 12-17-13

 

, ,

Double Hearsay in Presentence Report Did Not Render the Information Unreliable Re: a SORA Sex Offender Proceeding

The Second Department determined that the presence of double hearsay in a presentence report did not render the information unreliable such that it could not be considered in a SORA proceeding to determine the level of a sex offender:

“In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” … . Here, as the People correctly point out, the presentence report prepared by the Department of Probation, the felony complaint sworn to and signed by the arresting officer, and the arrest report constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]) and provided clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of the rape … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that certain statements contained in these documents constituted “double hearsay” did not necessarily render them unreliable for purposes of a SORA hearing … . Moreover, even though certain proof may not have been admissible at the criminal trial, the Legislature did not limit the types of materials admissible in a SORA proceeding to what would be admissible at a civil or criminal trial… . People v Dash, 2013 NY Slip Op 07948, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, , ,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Evidence Relating to Victim’s Recantation at SORA Hearing

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to present evidence (at the SORA hearing) of the victim’s (his daughter’s) recantation of her allegations of sexual abuse, including the testimony of the victim:

The Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from offering into evidence affidavits from his daughter recanting the underlying allegations of sexual abuse, and denying the defendant’s motion in limine to permit his daughter to testify at the SORA hearing. At a SORA hearing, “[t]he court shall allow the sex offender to appear and be heard” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). The People bear of the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of points under the Guidelines issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C [hereinafter SORA]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]). The SORA court “shall review any victim’s statement and any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and the recommendation and any materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsay evidence submitted by either party, provided that it is relevant to the determinations” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Further, “[f]acts previously proven at trial or elicited at the time of entry of a plea of guilty shall be deemed established by clear and convincing evidence and shall not be relitigated” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the only facts elicited at the time of the defendant’s plea of guilty were that, on one occasion, he touched his daughter’s breasts and that he did so for sexual gratification, and therefore he was barred from relitigating those facts in this SORA proceeding (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). However, the defendant was entitled to rely upon the proffered evidence for the limited purpose of contesting the People’s allegations that he engaged in intercourse with his daughter and that the sexual misconduct was ongoing, which resulted in the assessment of points under risk factors 2 and 4. Since the excluded evidence was relevant to material issues at the hearing (i.e., the nature and duration of the sexual contact), the defendant should have been permitted to introduce it… . People v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 07459, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed County Court’s upward adjustment of defendant’s sex offender status from a presumptive level I to a level III.  Defendant had pled guilty to a course of sexual conduct with a young girl entrusted to his care spanning five years:

“An upward departure from a presumptive risk classification is justified when an aggravating factor exists that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines and the court finds that such factor is supported by clear and convincing evidence” … .  The circumstances underlying these charges as well as defendant’s past misconduct may be considered within the context of this proceeding … .  Here, additional factors established by the record, not adequately taken into account by the guidelines, included defendant’s disregard and abuse of other children even younger than the victim who were also entrusted to his care, his mental instabilities, and the repeated and lengthy nature of his conduct toward the victim.  Accordingly, we find that the record sufficiently supports County Court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level… .  People v Muirhead, 511847, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

In SORA Proceeding, Offender Did Not Provide Sufficient Proof of Exceptional Response to Treatment

The Second Department noted that while an offender’s response to treatment can be a mitigating factor supporting a downward departure in a SORA proceeding, there was insufficient evidence of an exceptional response to treatment in this case:

A downward departure from a sex offender’s presumptive risk level generally is only warranted where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) Guidelines … . A defendant seeking a downward departure 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 Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” … .

Here, the defendant identified an appropriate mitigating factor that could provide a basis for a discretionary downward departure (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]… .). In this regard, the SORA Guidelines recognize that “[a]n offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]…). However, the defendant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts in support of its existence… . People v Guzman, 2013 NY Slip Op 06671, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s SORA determination because the court failed to follow the procedure required for an incarcerated defendant.  The SORA determination was made at sentencing:

In this case, the Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to a nine-month term of incarceration without any probation supervision. The court conducted the risk assessment hearing and made its risk level determination immediately after sentencing, using a risk level assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office. This violated SORA and deprived the defendant of his right to due process … . Pursuant to the SORA statutory scheme, a risk level determination should not have been made until 30 days before his release from custody (see Correction Law § 168-n[2]… ). The court’s determination should have been preceded by the Board’s risk level recommendation, and the defendant should have been notified of the opportunity to submit to the Board any information that he believed was relevant for its review (see Correction Law § 168-n[2], [3]). Under the circumstances presented here, the fact that the defendant did not explicitly object to this procedure does not indicate that he knowingly and intelligently waived these statutory and due process rights or failed to preserve the issue for appellate review … . Moreover, while Correction Law § 168-l(8) provides that, notwithstanding the Board’s failure to act, a court may still make a determination regarding a sex offender’s risk level, “this must be read as applying only where the Board had the opportunity to make a recommendation in the first instance” … . Here, the Board had no such opportunity, since the risk level determination was erroneously made immediately after the defendant was sentenced. As a result, “the Supreme Court was without a statutorily-authorized basis for making a risk level determination”… .  People v Game, 2013 NY Slip Op 06670, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

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