NY: Court of Appeals orders new risk level classification hearing for registered sex offender

Source: nydailyrecord.com 6/23/23

New York state’s highest court has ordered a new hearing to determine the risk level classification for a registered sex offender.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA) court deprived defendant Michael Worley of due process rights by changing his risk level assessment without giving him an opportunity to contest the determination.

At the SORA hearing, the prosecutor acknowledged that Worley was incorrectly penalized for refusing to attend sex offender treatment. In fact, he was never able to attend because his disciplinary history required that he stay in restrictive housing.

“The proceeding failed to comport with due process because defendant was provided no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard,” Rivera wrote.

“The court erred by proceeding in this manner. Under these circumstances, the SORA court denied defendant the due process to which he is entitled. The proper remedy for this violation is a new judicial determination of defendant’s SORA classification, made after timely notice of the Board and District Attorney’s recommendations and reasons in support, and upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and the evidence submitted at the scheduled hearing,” she wrote.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How dishonest was it for the Rehnquist Court to compartmentalize ” dangerous-ness ” away from the intent behind the registration regime. Ordering a risk assessment is precisely that. Yes it is a civil process (The assessment itself) but the reasoning is wholly based on the peoples desire to indicate those who are a threat. The overbroad application that occurred factually indicates something else was afoot.

Here’s how stupid the State of California is. Take a look at the State of New York’s risk assessment instrument:


Then take a look at the State of California’s “risk assessment,” the Static-99R, which actually gives non-contact registrants higher scores, as well as gives gay people an extra point, too:


If the New York appellate court has brought question to how sex offenders are “assessed” on New York’s more extensive risk assessment, then how the hell is California getting away with a much more watered-down, and illogical version of a risk assessment, the Static-99R, that gives non-violent and/or gay offenders one or two extra points?

The dishonest, Orwell-level corruption in the State of California is out-of-control. No wonder one-third of America’s homeless population live in the State of California, about 40 percent of Californians are considering leaving the state, and the State of California somehow turned a massive surplus into a $32-billion dollar deficit.

On top of this all, Californians are taxed at among the highest tax rates in the country. And for what exactly? Paying a price for the “good weather” in earthquake country? All it will take is a massive earthquake to tear the state’s infrastructure apart.

Anyway, I’m convinced the State of California is run by a bunch of massively incompetent, corrupt, conflict-of-interested buffoons. Ever watch those First Amendment Audits? If not, YouTube “First Amendment Audit” into YouTube and prepared to be shocked. We’re literally ruled by a bunch of Tyrants, from the lowest level, all the way to the supervisory level, and it’s going to get worse.

(Long Island Audit is my favorite auditor btw; he just did an audit in San Diego a few days ago, which is on his YouTube page, and the way our so-called “government” won’t even respect the very basic First Amendment right is incredibly troubling because once the First Amendment goes, everything with regard to the Constitution will go downhill very fast.)

Last edited 11 months ago by The Static-99R Is A Scam

The NY risk assessment is hogwash also it’s essentially putting you on trial again and bases everything off the original offense & not how you are after the fact. My offense didn’t even happen in NY, I just moved there for work for a couple years. They said I was even more dangerous now since I have lived outside of the country. So yeah, worthless.

The Static-99/R is absolutely a scam. No “test” or “quiz” can “predict” human behavior. New York’s test is no different. Back to the basics. Didn’t California only require registration for something like 7 or 11 offenses, only violent ones, when it originally implemented the registry after WWII? How the hell are there now over 50 crimes that require registration? The model penal code needs to be implemented. Only 4 crimes requiring registration, all contact crimes, 15 years for them, and no public registry.

Then again, just abolish the registry all together. Where is the evidence that shows they work? If anything all I’ve seen is that registries cause people to commit crimes because they have nothing to lose. The only thing registries are good at is getting extremist right-wing politicians elected. On the same token these pseudo science McDonald’s Style risk assessments are good at getting centrist and fake left-wing politicians elected because they are “empirical” and “evidence based.” LMAO give me a break. No way in hell a few simple questions is enough to predict something as complicated as human behavior

Only assessment I follow is how long a registrant has been in the community and if they are offense free. I don’t know how much more proof those in ivory towers of snobbery need to disprove their assumptions on those who sexually offended.