People of the State of New York v. Matthew Blount
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Due process at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk-level hearing—whether a defendant can be classified in absentia without a knowing, voluntary waiver under Correction Law § 168-n(3) [SORA hearing procedures, including notice to the offender and the offender’s right to be present].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, proceeded with the SORA hearing in the defendant’s absence and designated him a level two sex offender.
The order designating the defendant a level two sex offender following a hearing held in his absence.
The record did not show that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, his right to be present, or that the hearing would proceed without him, nor that his absence was deliberate; counsel expressly stated there was no waiver. Without a valid waiver and on-the-record findings as required by Correction Law § 168-n(6), proceeding in absentia violated due process.
Background
The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child. A Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing was initially scheduled for July 29, 2013, and adjourned at defense counsel’s request to obtain additional papers. When the hearing reconvened on September 10, 2013, the defendant was absent. Defense counsel reported the defendant wished to be present, did not know why he was absent, could not reach him by phone, and requested a further adjournment.
Lower Court Decision
Over defense objection, the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied a further adjournment, conducted the SORA hearing in the defendant’s absence, and designated him a level two sex offender.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law and remitted for a new SORA risk-level assessment hearing with notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n(3), and a new determination thereafter. The court held that the record failed to establish a voluntary waiver or deliberate absence and did not reach the remaining contentions.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a defendant has a due process right to be present at a SORA risk-level hearing and that courts may proceed in absentia only after making and recording findings that the defendant received notice, was advised of the right to be present and the consequences of nonappearance, and deliberately chose to be absent.
Before conducting a SORA hearing without the defendant, the court must ensure and memorialize notice, advisement of the right to be present and consequences of nonappearance, and a voluntary, deliberate absence; otherwise, any risk-level designation will be reversed and remanded.