In re Registrant V.L.
Decision Date | 20 July 2015 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0816-14T1 |
Parties | In the Matter of Registrant V.L. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Seth R. Belson, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant V.L. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Belson, on the brief).
Erin M. Bisirri, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (James P. McClain, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Bisirri, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges NUGENT, ACCURSO and MANAHAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
NUGENT, J.A.D.
V.L. is a registered sex offender. He appeals from a September 16, 2014 Law Division order reclassifying his risk of reoffense or Tier, previously designated as low or Tier 1, to moderate or Tier 2, the latter requiring notification of his presence in the community not only to certain law enforcement agencies but also to certain community institutions and organizations. V.L. contends the trial court erred in scoring the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS), the instrument used by prosecutors and courts to determine whether a sex offender presents a low (Tier 1), moderate (Tier 2), or high (Tier 3) risk of reoffense. Specifically, V.L. argues that RRAS criterion seven—length of time since last offense—applies to sex offenses only, and the trial judge erred by ruling to the contrary. Our review of the Att'y Gen. Guidelines for Law Enforcement for the Implementation of Sex Offender Registration and Cmty. Notification Laws (June 1998, rev'd Feb. 2007) (the Guidelines) leads us to agree with V.L. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new tier hearing.
The facts are undisputed. In 2003 V.L. pled guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14–3(b), a sex offense as defined in Megan's Law.1 The court sentenced him to 364 days in jail and three years' probation. The court also ordered V.L. to comply with Megan's Law's registration provisions, N.J.S.A. 2C:7–1 to –5. These provisions require an incarcerated sex offender to register with the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality in which the offender proposes to reside upon release from jail or prison, periodically verify the address, and re-register upon a change of address.
Megan's Law's community notification provisions, N.J.S.A. 2C:7–6 to –10, require the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality where a sex offender resides to notify certain agencies and organizations of the sex offender's presence in the community. The extent of the notification depends upon the registrant's risk of reoffense. If a registrant's reoffense risk is low, law enforcement agencies likely to encounter the registrant must be notified. N.J.S.A. 2C:7–8(c)(1). If the reoffense risk is moderate, community organizations “including schools, religious and youth organizations shall be notified[.]” N.J.S.A. 2C:7–8(c)(2). If the reoffense risk is high, “the public shall be notified[.]” N.J.S.A. 2C:7–8(c)(3). A registrant's “tier” is determined in large part by the registrant's score on the RRAS.
In 2003, following V.L.'s release from his jail term for the sex offense, he was classified as a Tier 1 offender. Between 2003 and 2014, V.L. was convicted of crimes that included employing a juvenile in the commission of a crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:24–9, conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5–2, and shoplifting, N.J.S.A. 2C:20–11(b) ; possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35–10(a)(1) ; failing to verify his address, N.J.S.A. 2C:7–2(e) ; and burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18–2.
In 2014, following V.L.'s release from his prison term for burglary and his notifying authorities of his intent to change his address, the county prosecutor sought to reclassify him as a Tier 2 offender. At the tier hearing, the court determined that V.L. fell within Tier 2. In reaching that determination, the court rejected V.L.'s argument that RRAS criteria seven, “Length of Time Since Last Offense,” referred to sex offenses only. The court applied criterion seven to V.L.'s burglary conviction. As a consequence, V.L.'s overall score on the RRAS exceeded the maximum score for a low range or Tier 1 classification, and fell within the score for a moderate range or Tier 2 classification. V.L. appealed from the implementing order.
We begin our review with some fundamental observations about Megan's Law. The Legislature determined that the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders and other designated predators “require[d] a system of registration that will permit law enforcement officials to identify and alert the public when necessary for the public safety.” N.J.S.A. 2C:7–1a. Megan's Law's registration and notification provisions are intended to “provide law enforcement with additional information critical to preventing and promptly resolving incidents involving sexual abuse and missing persons.” N.J.S.A. 2C:7–1b.
In response to the Legislative Directive, the Attorney General “convened a committee composed of mental health experts as well as members of the Law Enforcement Committee, which drafted the [RRAS] and the accompanying Registrant Risk Assessment Scale Manual (RRA Manual),2 which explains the [RRAS].” In re Registrant C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 82, 679 A. 2d 1153 (1996). The RRAS, a copy of which is attached to this opinion as Appendix A, is divided into four categories: “Seriousness of Offense,” “Offense History,” “Characteristics of Offender,” and “Community Support.” Each category contains at least two of a total of thirteen criteria and each criterion is given a score of zero, one, or three, depending on whether the criteria as applied to the offender create a low, moderate, or high risk assessment correlating to a tier. The factors are then weighted by means of a multiplier. An overall score of 0 to 36 places an offender in Tier 1; 37 to 73, in Tier 2; and 74 to 111, Tier 3.
This appeal requires us to interpret the Guidelines and the RRA Manual. Because such an interpretation presents a purely legal question, we owe no deference to the trial court and our review is plenary. State v. Pomianek, 221 N.J. 66, 80, 110 A. 3d 841 (2015) ; Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A. 2d 1230 (1995).
The current RRA Manual explains:
Under the heading, “The likelihood that the defendant will recidivate,” the RRA Manual states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re A.A.
...at 81-82, 685 A.2d 1252 ; State v. C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 260, 156 A.3d 1088 (App. Div. 2017) (citing In re Registrant V.L., 441 N.J. Super. 425, 429, 119 A.3d 914 (App. Div. 2015) ). "The RRAS was developed by a committee of mental health experts and members of the law enforcement comm......
-
In re J.G.
...score is seventy-four or above (the maximum score is 111), the registrant is assigned to Tier Three. Ibid.; In re V.L., 441 N.J. Super. 425, 428-29, 119 A.3d 914 (App. Div. 2015).The Supreme Court has held that the registration and community notification components of Megan's Law are consti......
-
In re Registrant N.F.
...is low (Tier I), moderate (Tier II), or high (Tier III). State v. C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 260 (2017) (citing In re V.L., 441 N.J. Super. 425, 429 (App. Div. 2015)). In assigning a tier rating to a registered sex offender, the court considers thirteen factors across four categories: (a) s......
-
In re A.R.
... IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT A.R. No. A-0561-19Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate DivisionSeptember 29, 2021 ... This ... opinion shall not ... ...