People v. Shader, 2024 NY Slip Op 05873 (2024)
When considering a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level modification petition, courts must assess an offender’s current risk of reoffense, and the relevance of prior convictions is limited to those that indicate a propensity for sexual offenses; non-sexual offenses, particularly those remote in time, are generally not relevant.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a SORA-registered sex offender, Timothy Shader, was improperly denied a modification of his risk level from Level 3 to Level 1. The court held that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion by modifying Shader’s risk level to Level 2. However, the dissenting opinion argued that the lower courts erred by considering a 2003 misdemeanor conviction for attempted auto stripping and attempted possession of burglary tools, offenses unrelated to sexual misconduct, when assessing the risk of sexual reoffense. The dissent emphasized that SORA is focused on preventing sexual recidivism, and that evidence of a non-sexual nature, particularly remote in time, has no bearing on this determination. The dissent concluded that the SORA court erred in its analysis and would have reversed and ordered the lower court to re-examine the matter, but that it was too late for the defendant.
Facts
In 1977, Timothy Shader committed a rape and other crimes, was convicted, and served 21 years in prison. Upon his release on parole in 1998, he was designated a Level 3 sex offender under SORA. In 2003, while on parole, Shader was convicted of two misdemeanors: attempted auto stripping and attempted possession of burglary tools. In 2021, Shader petitioned to modify his risk level to Level 1, citing rehabilitation, employment, a stable relationship, and compliance with SORA requirements, but was denied a level one designation based on the severity of his crimes and prior criminal record, and the 2003 misdemeanors. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders did not oppose the level one request.
Procedural History
Shader initially petitioned the County Court to modify his risk level, which was granted in part, lowering his designation from Level 3 to Level 2. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the lower courts erred by considering Shader’s 2003 misdemeanor conviction in determining his current risk of sexual reoffense, and whether these convictions were relevant to a determination under SORA.
2. Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Shader’s petition for a further modification to Level 1.
Holding
1. No, the majority held that there was no legal error in considering the 2003 misdemeanors. The dissent argued that the 2003 misdemeanors were irrelevant and not a proper consideration under the statute because they were not sexual in nature, or in any way indicative of a propensity to commit another sex offense.
2. No, the court held that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in modifying to Level 2 but denying further modification to Level 1. The dissent would have reversed for the reasons stated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals majority upheld the lower courts, stating that they had properly considered all