The People of the State of New York v. Bryon Bartholomew, Defendant. (2026)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RECORD

The defendant appears before the Court for a risk-level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C). The Court conducted a hearing on July 6, 2026. The People appeared by Assistant District Attorney Michelle Patten Coy. The defendant appeared by video and through counsel, Julie Clark.

Three qualifying convictions are before the Court. For clarity, the Court refers to IND-73105-21 as Case A, IND-70444-22 as Case B, and IND-72740-22 as Case C.

Case A. On March 31, 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]) and was sentenced to 3½ years of incarceration followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The underlying conduct occurred between September 8 and October 9, 2020, and involved a 13-year-old victim. The reliable case materials establish that the defendant went to the victim's residence, exposed his penis, forcefully controlled her head, pushed her onto a bed, placed his hands on her chest or collarbone area, penetrated her vagina, repositioned her and penetrated her again, and repeatedly forced contact between his penis and her mouth. He also created a photograph and video while penetrating her.

Case B. On March 31, 2022, the defendant also pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 [1]) and was sentenced to one year of incarceration. The offense occurred on February 9, 2022. The defendant, then 20 years old, met the 15-year-old victim that day. While the victim had her child strapped to her chest, the defendant and the victim smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, after which the defendant engaged in vaginal intercourse with her.

Case C. On December 13, 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty to use of a child less than 17 years old in a sexual performance (Penal Law § 263.05), as a sexually motivated felony, and was sentenced to five years of incarceration followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The offense occurred on or about February 10, 2020, after the defendant met the 15-year-old victim through Snapchat. The defendant, then 18 years old, engaged in vaginal intercourse with the victim and recorded the incident without her knowledge.

The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a separate Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) for each matter. For Case A, the Board calculated 65 points and recommended an upward departure to risk level two. For Case B, the Board calculated 80 points, resulting in a presumptive risk level two. For Case C, the Board calculated 55 points and recommended an upward departure to risk level two. The People proposed a consolidated score of 135 points, but also requested separate risk-level determinations and asked that the sexually violent offender designation be entered only in Case A. The defense contested risk factors 3 and 11 and requested a level two adjudication.

In reaching its determination, the Court considered the Board's RAIs and case summaries, the People's consolidated scoring position, the grand jury minutes, indictments and criminal court complaints, presentence investigation materials, the defendant's criminal history report, and the arguments presented at the hearing. The Court relies only upon information sufficiently reliable for SORA purposes.

II. GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting a SORA risk-level determination by clear and convincing evidence (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v. Howard, 27 NY3d 337, 341 [2016]; People v. David W., 95 NY2d 130, 138 [2000]). The Court must make an independent determination and is not bound by the Board's recommendation or either party's proposed score.

The Court may consider relevant and reliable hearsay, including a Board case summary, presentence materials, grand jury minutes, certified records, and other reliable documentary evidence (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v. Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571-573 [2009]). The Court evaluates the conduct established by the reliable evidence and assigns the highest score applicable within each risk factor.

A party seeking a departure from the presumptive risk level must identify a legally appropriate aggravating or mitigating factor not adequately accounted for by the Guidelines, establish the facts supporting that factor under the applicable evidentiary standard, and persuade the Court that the totality of the circumstances warrants departure (People v. Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; People v. Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128 [2d Dept 2011]). A defendant seeking a downward departure bears the burden of establishing the facts supporting the proposed mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence (Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861).

III. THE THREE CONVICTIONS REQUIRE ONE CONSOLIDATED SORA DETERMINATION

The threshold procedural question is whether the Court should issue three separate SORA determinations or one determination based upon all three convictions. The controlling authorities require one consolidated adjudication. Where convictions under multiple indictments come before the court for disposition at the same SORA hearing, the crimes must be considered together as the offender's "Current Offenses," the RAI must be completed on the basis of all of those crimes, and the court must render a single risk assessment determination (People v. Cook, 29 NY3d 114, 119-120 [2017]; People v. Songster, 207 AD3d 579, 581-582 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 904 [2022]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5-6 [2006] [Guidelines]).

The fact that the Board prepared three RAIs does not authorize three judicial adjudications. Indeed, Songster involved one SORA hearing, multiple indictments, separate Board RAIs, and separate judicial orders assigning different risk levels. The Appellate Division explained that the proper procedure was a single RAI and a single determination based on all crimes presented for disposition (207 AD3d at 581-582).

Accordingly, the Court rejects the request for separate orders. It assesses each of the 15 risk factors once, considering the most serious conduct established across the grouped current offenses. The Court does not add the totals from the Board's three RAIs. Instead, it independently determines one aggregate score, one presumptive risk level, and one offender-level adjudication reflecting every applicable statutory designation.

IV. RISK FACTOR FINDINGS

In determining the appropriate assessment under each risk factor, the Court considered the Risk Assessment Instruments and case summaries prepared by the Board of Sex Offenders for Case A, B, and C; the Risk Assessment Instrument submitted by the People; the presentence investigation report; the grand jury minutes; the indictments and criminal court complaints; the defendant's criminal report; and the arguments presented by the parties at the hearing. The Court identifies below the evidence upon which it principally relies in reaching each determination.

A. Current-Offense Factors

Risk Factor 1 — Use of Violence: 10 points

The Court assesses 10 points under Risk Factor 1 based upon the defendant's use of forcible compulsion during the offense in Case A. In reaching this determination, the Court relies upon the Board's case summary for Case A, the presentence investigation report, the indictment, and the grand jury minutes relating to Case A. Those materials establish that the defendant forcefully controlled the 13-year-old victim's head, pushed her onto a bed, placed his hands on her upper chest or collarbone area, and used that force to accomplish vaginal and oral sexual conduct. The materials further establish that the defendant used physical force to accomplish vaginal intercourse and to force the victim's head into contact with his penis.

This evidence establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used forcible compulsion during the commission of the offense. The Court therefore assesses 10 points. This assessment was not contested.

Risk Factor 2 — Sexual Contact With the Victim: 25 points

The Court assesses 25 points under Risk Factor 2 because the grouped current offenses involved sexual intercourse and oral sexual conduct. The Court relies upon the Board's case summaries for Cases A, B, and C, the presentence investigation report, the indictments and criminal court complaints, and the grand jury minutes. The materials relating to each case establish that the defendant engaged in vaginal intercourse with the respective victim. The materials relating to Case A additionally establish that the defendant placed his penis in contact with the victim's mouth.

As the most serious sexual contact established by the record consisted of sexual intercourse and oral sexual conduct, the highest assessment available under this factor applies. The Court therefore assesses 25 points under Risk Factor 2. This assessment was not contested.

Risk Factor 3 — Number of Victims: 30 points

The Court assesses 30 points under Risk Factor 3 because the grouped offenses involved three distinct victims.

The Court relies upon the Board's case summaries for Cases A, B, and C, the presentence investigation report, the indictments and criminal court complaints, and the grand jury minutes. Those materials identify a separate victim in each matter: a 13-year-old victim in Case A, a 15-year-old victim in Case B, and a different 15-year-old victim in Case C. The record therefore established by clear and convincing evidence that the grouped current offenses involved three victims.

The defense objected to the inclusion of the victims from all three cases in a single assessment. As explained in Section III, however, when convictions under multiple indictments are presented for disposition at the same SORA hearing, the offenses must be considered collectively as the defendant's current offenses. The Court must complete one Risk Assessment Instrument based upon all of the qualifying crimes presented for disposition and render one risk-level determination (see People v. Cook, 29 NY3d 114, 119-120 [2017]; People v. Songster, 207 AD3d 579, 581-582 [2d Dept. 2022]).

As the consolidated current offenses involved three separate victims, the Court assesses 30 points under Risk Factor 3.

Risk Factor 4 — Duration of Offense Conduct With Victim: 0 points

The People request no points. Although the Case A charging materials identify a date range, the proof does not establish the temporal pattern required by the Guidelines—either two or more acts separated by at least 24 hours or three or more acts over a period of at least two weeks. A date range, without proof of the requisite separate acts, is insufficient. The Court assesses 0 points.

Risk Factor 5 — Age of Victim: 20 points

The Court assesses 20 points under Risk Factor 4 because each of the three victims was between 11 and 16 years old when the respective offense occurred. The Court relies upon the Board's case summaries for Cases A, B, and C, the presentence investigation report, the indictments and criminal court complaints, and the grand jury minutes. Those materials establish that the victim in case A was 13 years old and that the victims in Cases B and C were each 15 years old.

As the victims were between 11 and 16 years old, the applicable assessment, based on clear and convincing evidence, is 20 points. This assessment was not contested.

Risk Factor 6 — Other Victim Characteristics: 0 points

The People request no points, and the record does not establish mental disability, mental incapacity, or physical helplessness within the meaning of this factor. The Court assesses 0 points.

Risk Factor 7 — Relationship With Victim: 20 points

The Court assesses 20 points under Risk Factor 7. The Court relied upon the case summary from Case B, and the grand jury minutes. The victim in Case B met the defendant for the first time on the day of the offense. A victim who meets the offender for the first time on the day of the sexual conduct is a stranger for purposes of risk factor 7 (see People v. Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820 [2d Dept 2010]; People v. Palacios, 137 AD3d 761, 762 [2d Dept 2016]).

The Court therefore assesses 20 points as this Risk Factor was proven by clear and convincing evidence. This assessment was not contested.

B. Criminal-History Factors

Risk Factor 8 — Age at First Act of Sexual Misconduct: 10 points

The Court assesses 10 points for Risk Factor 8 after relying on the case summaries, the criminal history report, presentence investigation report, the criminal court complaint and grand jury minutes. The earliest established act of sexual misconduct occurred when the defendant was 18 years old.

As the defendant was 20 years old or younger at the time of his first act of sexual misconduct, this risk factor was established by clear and convincing evidence. The Court therefore assesses 10 points. This assessment was not contested.

Risk Factor 9 — Number and Nature of Prior Crimes: 5 points

The Court assesses 5 points for Risk Factor 9. The criminal history report establishes that the defendant was convicted of petit larceny on April 13, 2021. That misdemeanor conviction preceded the commission of Case B on February 9, 2022, and thus constituted criminal history when the defendant committed one of the grouped current offenses. Risk factor 9 assigns 5 points for criminal history not falling within a higher-scoring category (Guidelines at 13; see People v. Day, 201 AD3d 602, 602 [1st Dept 2022]). The Court assesses 5 points as this risk factor was established by clear and convincing evidence. This assessment was not contested.

Risk Factor 10 — Recency of Prior Felony or Sex Crime: 0 points

The petit larceny conviction is neither a felony nor a sex crime, and the People established no qualifying prior felony or sex crime within the relevant period. The Court assesses 0 points.

Risk Factor 11 — Drug or Alcohol Abuse: 0 points

The Court assesses 0 points under Risk Factor 11. The People rely upon the evidence that, before the sexual conduct in Case B, the defendant smoked marijuana and drank alcohol with the victim. That evidence establishes use on one occasion, but it does not establish abuse by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, the Board did not assess points under this risk factor in any of the three RAI presented to the Court. The record does not quantify the defendant's consumption, establish intoxication or impairment, describe repeated or excessive use, identify an admission or diagnosis of substance abuse, or show a treatment or institutional history related to substance abuse.

Risk factor 11 addresses a history of drug or alcohol abuse or abuse at the time of the offense—not the mere fact that a substance was used. The Court of Appeals has held that alcohol use at the time of an offense, without proof of excess or a broader history of abuse, is insufficient (People v. Palmer, 20 NY3d 373, 378-379 [2013]). Likewise, limited information that does not establish a history of abuse does not satisfy the People's burden (People v. Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]). Although marijuana use may support an assessment when the evidence establishes regular, serious, or otherwise abusive use, occasional use alone does not do so (see People v. Ramos, 171 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2019]). On the record presented, the People have not proven this factor by clear and convincing evidence. The Court assesses 0 points.

C. Post-Offense Behavior and Release Environment

The People request no points under risk factor 12 (acceptance of responsibility), risk factor 13 (conduct while confined or supervised), risk factor 14 (supervision), or risk factor 15 (living or employment situation). The record does not establish a basis for an assessment under any of those factors. The Court therefore assesses 0 points under risk factors 12, 13, 14, and 15.

V. SCORE SUMMARY AND PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL

The Court's findings produce the following consolidated score:

A total score of 120 points places the defendant within presumptive risk level three (110 to 300 points).

VI. AUTOMATIC OVERRIDES

No automatic override applies. The record does not establish the infliction of serious physical injury or death, a recent threat to reoffend by committing a sexual or violent crime, or a clinical assessment of a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases the defendant's ability to control impulsive sexual behavior (Guidelines at 3-4, 19). Nor did the defendant have a prior felony conviction for a sex crime when he committed any of the grouped current offenses. His first qualifying sex-offense conviction was entered on March 22, 2022, after the last of the grouped offenses was committed on February 9, 2022. Accordingly, the prior-felony-sex-crime override does not apply (see People v. Songster, 207 AD3d 579, 582 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 904 [2022]; People v. Lezama, 247 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2026]). The presumptive risk level rests upon the 120-point score, not an override.

VII. DOWNWARD DEPARTURE

The defense requests a downward departure to risk level two. Counsel emphasizes that the Board recommended level two in each separate case; no victim suffered serious physical injury or death; no clinical assessment identifies an abnormality decreasing the defendant's ability to control impulsive sexual behavior; the defendant has participated in treatment at an acceptable level since March 2026; and he has not received a tier II or serious tier III disciplinary violation while incarcerated.

Those circumstances do not establish an appropriate mitigating factor warranting departure. First, the Board's separate level-two recommendations arose from separate RAIs that did not evaluate all three current offenses together. Because the law requires one consolidated RAI, the separate recommendations do not demonstrate that the consolidated 120-point score overstates the defendant's risk.

Second, the absence of serious physical injury, death, or a clinical abnormality does not affirmatively establish a reduced likelihood of reoffense. Those circumstances principally explain why higher points or an automatic override were not applied. Similarly, satisfactory institutional conduct is already reflected in the assessment of 0 points under risk factor 13.

Third, an offender's response to treatment may support a downward departure only when the response is exceptional (Guidelines at 17; People v. Coleman, 203 AD3d 851, 853 [2d Dept 2022]). The record establishes only acceptable participation beginning in March 2026. It contains no clinical opinion, treatment evaluation, or other proof demonstrating an exceptional response or linking the defendant's participation to a materially reduced risk of sexual recidivism.

Even assuming the defense identified some mitigating circumstance, the totality of the record would not warrant a departure. The grouped current offenses involve three minor victims, separate incidents over an approximately two-year period, penetrative sexual conduct in each case, forcible conduct in Case A, and the creation of sexual recordings in Cases A and C, including a recording made without the victim's knowledge in Case C. Those circumstances demonstrate that the consolidated score does not overassess the defendant's danger to the community or risk of reoffense. The request for a downward departure is denied.

VIII. STATUTORY DESIGNATIONS

A. Sexually Violent Offender

Case A resulted in a conviction of attempted rape in the first degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00/130.35 (1). Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a) expressly includes a conviction of, or an attempt to commit, rape in the first degree among the statutorily defined sexually violent offenses. A "sexually violent offender" is a sex offender who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (Correction Law § 168-a [7] [b]).

That designation is mandatory and is not a matter of judicial discretion (People v. Talluto, 39 NY3d 306, 315-316 [2022]). As Cook and Songster require one offender-level adjudication for the grouped current offenses, the sexually violent offender designation cannot be confined to a separate order under Case A while different designations are entered under Cases B and C. The defendant is therefore designated a sexually violent offender in this consolidated proceeding.

IX. DECISION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby

ORDERED, that IND-73105-21, IND-70444-22, and IND-72740-22 are treated as grouped current offenses for purposes of this SORA disposition; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Court assesses the defendant a total of 120 points on the consolidated RAI; and it is further

ORDERED, that the defendant is adjudicated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C; and it is further

ORDERED, that the defendant is designated a sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (7) (b) and (c); and it is further

ORDERED, that the defendant's request for a downward departure to risk level two is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Court shall issue one SORA disposition covering the three grouped current offenses, rather than separate risk-level determinations under each indictment.

The Court will forward to counsel and the defendant the Sex Offender Monitoring Unit form advising the defendant of the applicable registration requirements. Counsel shall review the form with the defendant as necessary, obtain the defendant's signature, and return the signed form to the Court.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: August 5, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

HON. SHAREN D. HUDSON, J.S.C.

Sharen D. Hudson, J.