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

In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor 7 (“Relationship Between Offender and Victim”)

In affirming a SORA determination, the Fourth Department noted that the 20 point assessment under risk factor 7 (entitled “Relationship Between Offender and Victim”), based upon the defendant’s pleading guilty to receiving child pornography (a federal statute), was appropriate:

With respect to …the 20 points assessed under risk factor 7, we note that the underlying conviction was a federal offense to which defendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (18 USC 2252 [a] [2]).  Although the Court of Appeals has stated that “[i]t does not seem that factor 7 was written with possessors of child pornography in mind” …, the Court of Appeals determined that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7 in a case where the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography….  Consequently, we conclude that the court here properly assessed points under risk factor 7. People v Noyes, 687, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

SORA Court’s Failure to Issue Written Findings Required Remittal

The Third Department remitted a SORA proceeding because the court did not set forth in its written order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to defendant’s application for a downward departure and the oral findings were not sufficiently detailed for adequate review.  People v Filkins, 514025, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

SORA Determination without Board Recommendation Okay When Defendant Released Same Day as He Was Sentenced

The Third Department determined the SORA court could make a SORA level assessment without a recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders.  The facts of the case did not fall into any of the categories listed in the SORA statute which allows an assessment without a Board recommendation when the defendant is not incarcerated and requires a Board assessment before discharge when the defendant is incarcerated.  Here the defendant was released from incarceration on the day he was convicted. In holding the SORA properly made the assessment in the absence of a Board recommendation, the Third Department wrote:

Although SORA charges the Board with responsibility for making a risk level recommendation relative to incarcerated offenders, the ultimate responsibility for the risk level determination  is vested  in the  sentencing  court, which  “‘in the exercise of its discretion, may depart from [the Board’s] recommendation and determine the sex offender’s risk level based upon  the facts and circumstances that appear in the record'”…. In our view, this judicial obligation necessarily includes the authority to determine the appropriate procedure for a  risk level determination where,  as  here, the circumstances are not fully addressed by the SORA statutory scheme. This conclusion is supported by the statutory provisions addressing failures by  the  Board  to complete its statutory obligation; where the Board fails to issue a timely recommendation, SORA  provides that the court must nonetheless make  a risk level determination and, if it cannot do  so before the offender is discharged, must “expeditiously complete the hearing  and  issue its determination”  after his or  her  release (Correction Law § 168-l [8]). In effect, that is the procedure that County Court followed here.  People v Grimm, 104233, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

Absence of Evidence of Physical Injury Precluded 15 Point Assessment for Violence in SORA Proceeding

The First Department determined the SORA court improperly assessed 15 points for violence because there was insufficient evidence of physical injury:

The court erred in assessing 15 points under the risk factor for use of violence, because the People did not meet their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant caused physical injury (see Penal Law 10.00[9]) to the victim. Although minor injuries may cause substantial pain, a showing of “more than slight or trivial pain” is required …. The People do not dispute defendant’s assertion that the photographs of the injuries depicted only “faint marks and superficial scratches.” Although evidence of medical treatment is unnecessary to establish physical injury …, here the victim’s bare statement that her knee “hurt” was insufficient to support the inference that she suffered substantial pain, given the absence of evidence that she even used ice or an over-the-counter pain reliever. Furthermore, the injury was not sustained as a result of a deliberate assault or other act supporting an inference that it caused substantial pain …. Therefore, the court should have assessed 10 points for forcible compulsion, but not 15 points. People v Quito, 2013 NY Slip Op 03938, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

 

,

SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause Not Applicable​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) did not render the statute punitive and thereby violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or violate the Double Jeopardy prohibition with respect to the defendant:

It may be true that subjecting sex offenders to lifetime registration and notification requirements, with their attendant obligations and restrictions, increases the difficulties and embarrassment a sex offender may endure, even where he has led a law-abiding life since his conviction. However, in assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy …, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although “one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, . . . they do not violate the ex post facto clause . . . . People v Parilla, 2013 NY Slip Op 03931, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

,

SORA Applies to Out of State Sex Offense

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that petitioner (who pled nolo contendre to a sex offense in Florida and was registered as a sex offender in Florida) must register as a sex offender in New York (upon moving to New York), the Second Department wrote:

SORA provides that any “sex offender” must comply with its provisions (see Correction Law § 168-f). A “sex offender” is defined as “any person who is convicted” of a “sex offense” (Correction Law § 168-a[1], [2]). The definition of a “sex offense” with respect to an offense committed in another jurisdiction is “a conviction of [i] an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any such crime” that constitutes a “sex offense” under SORA (Correction Law [*2]§ 168-a[2][d][i]). The statute also provides that a “sex offense” includes a “conviction of . . . [ii] a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (Correction Law § 168-a[2][d][ii]). Matter of Kasckarow v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of NY, 2013 Slip Op 03485, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​

The Second Department explained the two factors a defendant must demonstrate for a downward departure in a SORA proceeding:

First, a defendant must identify, 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 [SORA] Guidelines”…. Second, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support that mitigating factor …. In the absence of that twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level …. People v Henry, 2013 NY Slip Op 03309, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Violent Felony Conviction for which Defendant Not Yet Sentenced Can Be Considered in SORA Assessment

The First Department determined a violent felony conviction for which the defendant had not yet been sentenced could be used as a risk factor in a SORA risk level assessment.  People v Franco, 2013 NY Slip Op 03168, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

 

, ,

SORA Proof Burdens Explained

The Third Department noted the different proof burdens for a SORA classification hearing versus a modification hearing:

The People concede that defendant is entitled to a new hearing because Supreme Court treated the 2005 rehearing as one for modification, as opposed to classification (compare Correction Law § 168-n, with Correction Law § 168-o).   As the People now acknowledge, they bore the burden of establishing the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence … .  Inasmuch as the record here reflects that the burden was placed on defendant to demonstrate sufficient evidence warranting a departure from the risk level III classification (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), we remit for a new hearing … . People v Middlemiss, 511311, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

,

Motion for SORA Downward Departure Requires Hearing​

The Second Department reversed the motion court because a motion for a downward departure (SORA) pursuant to Correction Law 168-o(2) requires a hearing:

By notice of motion dated September 21, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing. Because the requisite procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o were not followed, we reverse.  As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s motion, as it was required to do pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(4) …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion. People v Runko, 2013 NY Slip Op 02555, 2012-07328, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

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