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

DEFENDANT’S POSITIVE PERFORMANCE IN THE PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS OFFENSES, DID NOT WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL THREE TO LEVEL TWO; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the appellate division, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s request for a downward departure in this SORA risk-level proceeding (level three to level two) was properly denied:

In 1988, defendant was convicted after trial of four counts of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sodomy, among other crimes, for raping or sexually assaulting five women in their homes at knifepoint during burglaries that occurred over the course of a year. In anticipation of defendant’s conditional release from imprisonment in 2020, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders assessed defendant 155 points on the risk assessment instrument (RAI), presumptively designating him a level three sexually violent offender for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).

Defendant did not dispute the accuracy of the Board’s point assessment, but he requested that the court depart downward to risk level two. To that end, defendant argued that he did not present a high risk of sexual reoffense, as evidenced by his positive performance in sex offender treatment and educational programs while incarcerated (including obtaining his general equivalency diploma and college-level education credits), limited history of disciplinary infractions, age at time of release (51 years old), familial support, and his scores on two alternative risk assessment instruments. Defendant also asserted that he would be subject to supervision regardless of his risk designation as part of the terms of his conditional release, and that a level three designation would make it more difficult for him to locate housing. People v Anthony, 2023 NY Slip Op 03303, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s age (51) and positive performance in the prison sex offender treatment and educational programs, given the seriousness of his offenses, did not warrant a SORA risk-level downward departure from level three to level two. There was a strong two-judge dissent.

 

,

ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY, BRINGING DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT FROM A LEVEL THREE TO A LEVEL TWO, THE APPELLATE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO COUNTY COURT TO CONSIDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHETHER AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS WARRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court after the appellate court reduced the risk assessment by 10 points because the People conceded the absence of forcible compulsion. Eliminating that 10 point assessment resulted in reducing defendant from a level three offender to a level two offender. The remittal was for the purpose of allowing County Court to consider an upward departure, which the court did not consider because defendant had been deemed a presumptive level three offender at the time of the SORA hearing:

Here, the People prevailed before the SORA court on their requested allocation of points under the RAI [risk assessment instrument] and risk level. When the Appellate Division reversed on the allocation of points and the risk level dropped accordingly, it remitted to allow the SORA court to consider a departure request for the first time. Defendant and our dissenting colleague object, contending that because this upward departure request was not made during the original SORA proceeding, the SORA court made no ruling “adverse” to the People, and the Appellate Division therefore could not “review” this “unpreserved” departure question and order remittal upon reversal. But this argument confuses the question of whether remittal was appropriate corrective action with a question of preservation … . This is not a case in which a party failed to present an issue to the SORA court and then asked the Appellate Division to nonetheless resolve that same question; the Appellate Division did not rule on the merits of the departure but remitted it for the SORA court to do so in the first instance … . * * *

Curbing the Appellate Division’s power to remit for consideration of departure requests when it disagrees with the hearing court’s point assessment and changes an offender’s presumptive risk level would undermine SORA’s objective and unduly constrain the Appellate Division’s authority to order appropriate remedial action.  People v Weber, 2023 NY Slip Op 03301, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here in this SORA risk level proceeding, the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court to determine whether an upward departure was warranted. The appellate division had found a risk factor did not apply, reducing defendant’s risk level from three to two. County Court had not considered an upward departure in the original SORA proceeding because defendant’s presumptive risk level was already level three.

 

,

EVEN THOUGH THE SORA RISK LEVEL CAME OUT THE SAME (115 POINTS), THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRST REMOVED 15 POINTS WHICH WERE BASED ON AN INAPPLICABLE RISK FACTOR AND THEN ADDED 15 POINTS BASED ON A RISK FACTOR NOT INCLUDED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT; THAT CONSTITUTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WITHOUT NOTICE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a three-judge concurrence, reversing the appellate division, determined the judge in the SORA risk-level proceeding should not have departed from the presumptive risk level based on an issue of which the defendant was not given 10 days notice. The risk assessment included 15 points for refusing sex offender treatment but it was clear defendant did not refuse treatment. Rather, he was prohibited from receiving the treatment because of his prison disciplinary history. The judge agreed the 15 points for refusing treatment should be removed, but then added 15 points based on the defendant’s disciplinary record, a risk factor which was not included in the Board’s risk assessment:

Here, the proceeding failed to comport with due process because defendant was provided no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard in response to the District Attorney’s request for an upward departure first interposed during the SORA hearing in response to the court’s invitation. The Board recommended the court classify defendant as a level three offender based on his risk factor score of 115 points and did not recommend an upward departure or that the court consider defendant’s disciplinary history for purposes aside from a factor 13 point allocation. Although the District Attorney agreed with the Board that defendant should be classified as a level three risk, the District Attorney reached that conclusion not on the total point assessment contained in the RAI but rather on an independent basis that defendant’s disciplinary history was sufficiently egregious to warrant an upward departure. Once the District Attorney announced its deviation from the reasons supporting the Board’s proposed risk level classification, defendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure. The record shows that the court decided the issue without an adjournment, without allowing defendant to present rebuttal arguments or collect additional evidence, and without any input from defense counsel. The court erred by proceeding in this manner.  People v Worley, 2023 NY Slip Op 03300, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Even where the total number of SORA risk level points remains unchanged from that recommended by the Board, the judge cannot remove one inapplicable risk factor and then add a risk factor not recommended by the Board without affording defendant 10 days notice and an opportunity to be heard.

 

,

EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this SORA risk assessment proceeding, determined defendant was not given the required 10-day notice that the People would seek points under a risk factor that differed from the recommendation submitted by the the board. Here the board recommended a 30-point assessment under risk factor 1 for “armed with a dangerous instrument” but the court assessed 15 points for “inflicted personal injury.” The defendant was entitled to notice of that change, even though the number of points was reduced:

Correction Law § 168-n(3) provides that, “[i]f the district attorney seeks a determination that differs from the recommendation submitted by the board, at least ten days prior to the determination proceeding the district attorney shall provide to the court and the sex offender a statement setting forth the determinations sought by the district attorney together with the reasons for seeking such determinations” … , this Court held that the phrase “recommendation submitted by the board” is not limited to just the total points assessed or the recommended sex offender level designation, but “includes the factual predicate for the recommendation” … .

Here, the factual predicate for the Board’s recommendation for the assessment of points under risk factor 1 was the defendant having been “armed with a dangerous instrument,” not that he “inflicted physical injury.” In order to assess points under risk factor 1 based upon infliction of physical injury, the People were required by Correction Law § 168-n(3) to give the defendant the requisite 10-day notice, which they failed to do … . People v Green, 2023 NY Slip Op 02799, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: If the People seek a SORA risk assessment on a factual basis different from that recommended by the board, defendant is entitled to 10 days notice of the change, even if the change reduces the number of points to be assessed.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled a downward departure to level one because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending:

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, they are a permissible ground for departure … . Here, the defendant was released from prison for the underlying sex offense in 2002. In the time between his release and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2019, the defendant was at liberty for approximately 17 years without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we designate the defendant a level one sex offender … . People v Gurley, 2023 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S “PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD” CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON THE LAW; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A “SEX OFFENDER” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that if the underlying conviction has been reversed and the indictment dismissed it can no longer be the basis for classifying the defendant as a “sex offender:”

While this appeal was pending, this Court reversed the judgment convicting defendant of eight counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child as a sexually motivated felony (Penal Law §§ 130.91, 263.15) on the law and dismissed the indictment … .

A “sex offender” includes a person who is convicted of an offense described in Correction Law § 168-a (2) or (3). However “[a]ny [such] conviction set aside pursuant to law is not a conviction” for purposes of the statute (§ 168-a [1]; see § 168-d [1] [a]). Inasmuch as defendant’s judgment of conviction has been “set aside pursuant to law” (§ 168-a [1]) by reversal of this Court …, defendant does not qualify as a “sex offender” within the meaning of SORA, and the risk level determination must be vacated … . People v Congdon, 2023 NY Slip Op 02228, Fourth Dept 4-28-23

Practice Point: Where a sexual-offense conviction has been reversed on the law and the indictment dismissed, the defendant cannot be classified as a “sex offender.”

 

,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; THE JUDGMENT REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable offense under SORA:

… [W]e agree with defendant, as well as the People’s concession, that burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable offense under SORA because it is not expressly identified as a “[s]ex offense” pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) … .

… [T]he judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act and requiring him to register as a sex offender and pay the related sex offender registration fee … . People v Vakhoula, 2023 NY Slip Op 02034, Third Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Burglary as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable offense under SORA. Conviction does not require registration as a sex offender.

 

, ,

A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a sex offender can petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification, notwithstanding prior petitions within a year seeking other relief:

… [T]he petition … sought a downward modification of the defendant’s risk level classification. Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2), any sex offender required to register or verify under SORA may petition annually for modification of his or her risk level classification … . As the defendant had not petitioned for a modification of his risk level classification within the prior year, he was not procedurally barred from seeking such relief in the instant petition. Therefore, upon receipt of the petition, the court should have followed the procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4) and conducted a hearing on the petition. People v Ghose, 2023 NY Slip Op 02021, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A sex offender may petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification. Such a petition is not precluded by prior petitions within a year seeking other relief under the Correction Law.

 

, , , ,

THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10 THAT ALLOWS A COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE PETITIONER, WHO HAD BEEN RELEASED TO A STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATEMENT (SIST) REGIMEN, IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this habeas corpus proceeding, determined the “provision of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11(d)(4) that directs the court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement based upon a review of the allegations in a petition for confinement and any accompanying papers does not violate that respondent’s federal or state rights to due process.” The court further determined the issue raised here might recur so the appeal was not rendered moot by the petitioner’s release “to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (… SIST):

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 permits the court to revoke a regimen of SIST upon a violation of SIST conditions and sets forth the required procedures for such a revocation … . The statute provides, as relevant here, that if a parole officer has “reasonable cause to believe” that a sex offender requiring SIST has violated a condition thereof, the offender can be taken into custody for five days for an evaluation by a psychiatric examiner, and the attorney general and the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (hereinafter MHLS) are to be promptly notified … . The attorney general may then file a petition for confinement within five days after the offender is taken into custody, which petition must be served promptly on MHLS, and counsel must be appointed for the offender … . If a petition for confinement is filed, “the court shall promptly review the petition and, based on the allegations in the petition and any accompanying papers, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the [offender] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” … . There is no provision permitting the offender an opportunity to be heard prior to the probable cause determination. Once the probable cause determination is made, the offender may be retained pending the conclusion of the proceeding … . “Within thirty days after a petition for confinement is filed . . . , the court shall conduct a hearing” to make a final determination, but the failure to commence the hearing within that time period does not result in dismissal of the petition or “affect the validity of the hearing or the determination” … . People ex rel. Neville v Toulon, 2023 NY Slip Op 02015, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point; The provision of Mental Hygiene Law section 10 that allows a court to determine whether there is probable cause to believe petitioner, who had been released to a SIST regimen, is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is not unconstitutional.

Practice Point: Although at the time of this appeal in this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner had been released to a SIST regimen, the issue is likely to recur so the “exception to the mootness doctrine” doctrine was invoked.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel failed to provide “meaningful representation” … , as he “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , essentially declining to take any position on the matter. People v Motta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01908, Second Dept, 4-12-23

Practice Point: A defense attorney who fails to take a position in the SORA risk-assessment proceedings does not provide effective assistance of counsel.

 

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