FRY v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2017 OK 77
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In 2002 Fry pleaded to rape by instrumentation and received a five-year deferred sentence; SORA then required lifetime sex-offender registration.
- Upon completing the deferred sentence in 2007, DOC notified Fry of a lifetime registration obligation.
- In October 2009 the Pottawatomie County sentencing judge granted a § 582.5(D) "override," reducing Fry's registration period to 15 years from completion of sentence.
- The Legislature repealed § 582.5(D) effective November 1, 2009; the override was granted ten days before repeal.
- DOC received the override order in 2009 but did not appeal or otherwise challenge it; in 2015 DOC refused to implement the override, prompting Fry to seek deregistration in Canadian County.
- The Canadian County trial court enforced the 2009 override and ordered Fry removed from the registry; DOC appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fry) | Defendant's Argument (DOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a timely-granted § 582.5(D) override that reduced registration period can be enforced despite later repeal of the statute | The 2009 override is a final adjudication of Fry's registration requirements and must be honored; it was granted before repeal and DOC received it but did not appeal | DOC argues SORA obligations are governed by the version of the law in effect when the offender became subject to SORA (2002), so override cannot retroactively alter lifetime registration | Court: The timely-granted override is binding; DOC must honor it where neither prosecutor nor DOC appealed the order, so enforcement affirmed |
| Whether enforcing the override violates the prohibition on retroactive application of SORA (Ex Post Facto concerns) | The override reduces, not increases, registration obligations and therefore does not add sanctions or violate retroactivity/Ex Post Facto principles | DOC contends prior precedent requires applying the law in effect when subject to SORA, preventing retroactive benefit | Court: Starkey’s prohibition targets increases in sanctions; a statutory remedy that reduces requirements does not offend that prohibition, so override is permissible |
| Whether DOC’s receipt but failure to challenge the 2009 order precludes it from contesting enforcement later | Fry: DOC’s receipt and failure to timely challenge means DOC treated the order as valid and is bound by it | DOC: Maintains general rule that original SORA version governs and may contest implementation now | Court: DOC’s inaction and lack of timely appeal mean the override is a final adjudication of registration requirements that DOC must implement |
| Whether an override of a risk level can alter aggravated-offender status or lifetime registration for aggravated offenders | Fry: The override adjudicated registration requirements and reduced his period; he relied on statutory override remedy | DOC: An aggravated classification (imposed in 2002) is statutory and distinct from later risk-level assignments; courts cannot use § 582.5(D) to alter aggravated status or statutory lifetime obligations | Court: Where override addressed "requirements of registration" and was timely granted, it controls Fry’s registration here; (majority does not squarely resolve broader question about altering aggravated classifications in all cases) |
Key Cases Cited
- Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 305 P.3d 1004 (2013) (Oklahoma Supreme Court: unconstitutional to retroactively increase registration sanctions; prohibition focuses on additions/increases in punishment)
- Burk v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections, 349 P.3d 545 (2013) (law in effect at time offender becomes subject to SORA generally governs; proceedings begun before Nov. 1, 2009 amendments to level-reduction survive repeal)
- Cerniglia v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 349 P.3d 542 (2013) (same general rule: version of SORA in effect at conviction or when subject to Act controls registration period)
- Butler v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 321 P.3d 161 (2013) (trial court cannot give effect to unlawful expungement to avoid statutorily mandated lifetime registration for aggravated offenders)