Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. LASHAWN J. SCOTT, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in granting the People's request, made for the first time at the SORA hearing, to assess 20 additional points for risk factors that were not included in the risk assessment instrument, and therefore to determine that defendant is a level three risk rather than a level two risk. As the People correctly concede, they failed to provide defendant with the requisite 10–day notice that they intended to seek a determination different from that recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (see § 168–n [3]; People v. Gardner, 59 AD3d 604), and the court otherwise failed to provide defendant with “a meaningful opportunity to respond to the proposed amendment” (People v. Ferguson, 53 AD3d 571, 572; cf. People v. Warren, 42 AD3d 593, 594, lv denied 9 NY3d 810). Furthermore, defendant properly objected to the People's request (cf. People v. Charache, 9 NY3d 829, 830). Because defendant was denied his due process rights by the assessment of the additional points, we reverse the order, thereby vacating defendant's risk level determination, and we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings in compliance with Correction Law § 168–n (3) (see People v. Hackett, 89 AD3d 1479, 1479–1480).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: KA 11–00404
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)