FRY v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2017 Okla. LEXIS 79
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Adam Ray Fry pleaded guilty in 2002 to rape by instrumentation and received a five‑year deferred sentence; under SORA as of 2002 he qualified as an "aggravated sex offender" and faced lifetime registration.
- In October 2009 the Pottawatomie County sentencing judge granted an override under 57 O.S. § 582.5(D), reducing Fry’s registration period to 15 years after completion of the deferred sentence.
- The Department of Corrections (DOC) received the override order in 2009 but did not appeal or otherwise challenge it; the Pottawatomie County DA objected at the override hearing.
- DOC later refused to implement the override, asserting Oklahoma precedent requires registration periods be fixed by the law in effect when the offender became subject to SORA (i.e., Fry’s 2002 classification).
- The Canadian County district court ordered deregistration and removal from the registry; the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the 2009 override order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fry) | Defendant's Argument (DOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court‑granted §582.5(D) override reducing registration period must be honored by DOC when DOC received the order and did not appeal | The 2009 override is a valid, final adjudication changing Fry’s registration requirements and DOC must implement it | DOC contends prior case law fixes registration by the law in effect when offender became subject to SORA, so the override cannot retroactively change Fry’s period | The Court held DOC must honor timely‑sought and granted §582.5(D) overrides that were not appealed—the override is a final adjudication of registration requirements and is enforceable against DOC |
| Whether applying the §582.5(D) override to reduce Fry’s registration offends the constitutional prohibition on retroactive increases in sanctions (Starkey) | Fry argues the override reduces, not increases, registration obligations and therefore does not run afoul of Starkey’s prohibition on retroactive increases | DOC relies on Starkey and related 2013 decisions to argue registration is governed by the law in effect when the offender became subject to SORA, precluding retroactive changes | The Court distinguished Starkey: that case bars retroactive increases only. A statutory remedy that reduces registration (like §582.5(D)) does not add sanctions and is permissible even if it departs from the general rule about which version controls |
| Whether prior 2013 cases (Burk, Cerniglia) preclude giving retroactive effect to the 2007 level system or overrides | Fry: those cases do not bar application of a timely‑pursued override that was granted before the override remedy was repealed | DOC: Burk/Cerniglia require use of the law in effect when offender became subject to SORA and disallow retroactive application of later, more favorable rules | The Court read Burk/Cerniglia narrowly, holding they do not prevent enforcement of a properly obtained §582.5(D) override granted before the statutory remedy was repealed |
| Whether Fry’s aggravated‑offender status (and lifetime registration) remained binding despite the 2009 override/order and justifies DOC refusing deregistration | Fry: the override adjudicated his registration requirements and reduced his period; DOC’s failure to appeal makes the order binding | DOC: Fry’s 2002 conviction made him an aggravated sex offender subject to lifetime registration under statutes existing then; the override did not (and could not) change that statutory classification | The majority held the override is a final adjudication of Fry’s registration requirements and controls; the dissent argued the aggravated classification remains binding and DOC could raise it. The Court affirmed deregistration; two justices dissented on aggravated‑status grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Burk v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 349 P.3d 545 (Okla. 2013) (discusses which statutory regime governs registration and that ongoing proceedings begun before repeal may proceed)
- Cerniglia v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 349 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2013) (addresses the rule that the law in effect at conviction often controls registration obligations)
- Starkey v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013) (holds the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits retroactive increases in sanctions or registration requirements)
- Butler v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 321 P.3d 161 (Okla. 2013) (refused to give effect to unlawful expungement to avoid statutorily mandated lifetime registration for aggravated sex offender)