PEOPLE v. SOLOMON CROCKTON (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 14 for release without supervision. Risk factor 14 “is premised on the theory that a sex offender should be supervised by a probation or parole officer who oversees a sex offender caseload or who otherwise specializes in the management of such offenders,” and the risk assessment guidelines direct that “[a]n offender who is released without such intensive supervision is assessed points in this category” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006] [Guidelines]). The Guidelines expressly address the situation in which “the offender was convicted in a jurisdiction other than New York and subsequently relocates to New York” (id.), and provide that, “[i]f such an offender satisfactorily completed the terms of that jurisdiction's community supervision, [the offender] will be scored 0 points in this category” (id. [emphasis added]).

Here, after his conviction of a sexual offense in Florida, defendant violated the terms of his community supervision two times and completed serving his maximum sentence while incarcerated. Thus, “at the time the court made the SORA determination, defendant was no longer under any supervision” (People v. Miller, 77 A.D.3d 1386, 1387, 908 N.Y.S.2d 513 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 701, 2011 WL 32495 [2011]; see People v. Mathews, 181 A.D.3d 1103, 1104-1105, 118 N.Y.S.3d 819 [3d Dept. 2020]; People v. Middlemiss, 153 A.D.3d 1096, 1098, 60 N.Y.S.3d 593 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 906, 2017 WL 5615862 [2017]; People v. Leeks, 43 A.D.3d 1251, 1252, 842 N.Y.S.2d 613 [3d Dept. 2007]), and the “fact that defendant was released without supervision justified the imposition of the points assessed for this risk factor” (People v. Masi, 195 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 149 N.Y.S.3d 377 [3d Dept. 2021]).