Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a Supreme Court order designating the appellant as a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act following his guilty plea for sexual abuse in the first degree. The court affirmed the designation, finding that the People met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the factual bases for the assigned risk assessment points, particularly regarding the victim's age and the defendant's living situation. The court noted that even without one contested factor, the defendant's total points would still presumptively warrant a level two classification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the People proved by clear and convincing evidence the factual bases for the assessed risk points under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
- Whether the appellate court must address the contested assessment of 20 points for risk factor 4.
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the Supreme Court’s order designating the defendant a level two sex offender.
Key quotations
“In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to SORA, the People "bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168‑n[3]; see People v. Bullock, 217 AD3d 886, 887).” (at 2025 NY Slip Op 01399)
“The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.” (at 2025 NY Slip Op 01399)
Factual background
Miguel Moran Guerrero was convicted of first‑degree sexual abuse after entering a guilty plea. Under the Sex Offender Registration Act, the trial court assessed him 95 points on the risk‑assessment instrument and designated him a level two sex offender. The defendant contested the evidentiary basis for several of the point assessments.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Nassau County entered an order on March 31, 2023 designating the defendant a level two sex offender after a risk‑assessment under SORA. The defendant appealed, challenging several risk‑factor point assessments.