FRY v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2017 OK 77
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Adam Ray Fry pleaded guilty in 2002 to rape by instrumentation and received a five-year deferred sentence; under the SORA in effect at that time he was subject to lifetime sex-offender registration.
- After completing his sentence in 2007, DOC informed Fry of the lifetime registration requirement.
- In October 2009 the Pottawatomie County sentencing judge granted an override under 57 O.S. Supp.2008 § 582.5(D), reducing Fry’s registration period to 15 years from sentence completion.
- The Legislature repealed § 582.5(D) effective November 1, 2009, but the Pottawatomie override was entered before repeal.
- DOC received the override order in 2009 but did not appeal or seek relief; in 2015 DOC refused to honor the order and Fry petitioned in Canadian County for deregistration.
- The Canadian County district court enforced the 2009 override and ordered Fry removed from the sex-offender registry; DOC appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Fry's Argument | DOC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 582.5(D) override granted before repeal can be honored against DOC | The pre-repeal override is a valid adjudication of Fry’s registration requirements and DOC must implement it | DOC contends SORA’s registration period is fixed by the law in effect when Fry became subject to SORA (2002) so the lifetime requirement controls | Court: Affirmed the override; where override relief was timely sought and granted before repeal and not appealed, DOC must honor it |
| Whether applying the override violates the constitutional prohibition on retroactive increases in sanctions | Fry: Override reduces registration and therefore does not impose additional sanctions | DOC: Cases require applying the law in effect when offender became subject to SORA, rejecting retroactive changes to registration | Court: No retroactivity problem — the override lessens obligations and does not add sanctions, so it is permissible and not barred by Starkey |
| Whether DOC’s failure to appeal the override forfeits its ability to ignore the order later | Fry: DOC’s receipt and inaction mean the order is final and binding | DOC: Asserts general rule that original law governs and may challenge implementation | Court: DOC’s failure to timely challenge the override means the order is final and must be implemented by DOC |
| Whether an override can alter classification for aggravated offenders and affect lifetime registration | Fry: The override adjudicated his “requirements of registration” such that he can deregister | DOC: The aggravated-offender classification (from 2002 law) mandates lifetime registration and was not adjudicated by the override | Court: Distinguishes reduction of risk-level from augmentation of sanctions; here the override adjudicated registration requirements and must be honored — but the opinion leaves open that aggravated status remains relevant in other contexts (dissent disputes result) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burk v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corrections, 349 P.3d 545 (Okla. 2013) (holds law in effect when offender enters/relocates generally governs registration; recognizes pending level-reduction proceedings survived Nov. 1, 2009 repeal)
- Cerniglia v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corrections, 349 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2013) (reasoning that the version of SORA in effect when offender became subject to the Act typically governs registration obligations)
- Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corrections, 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013) (constitutional rule: legislature may not add sanctions or registration requirements retroactively to those already convicted)
- Butler v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Dep't of Corrections, 321 P.3d 161 (Okla. 2013) (refused to allow an unlawful expungement to supersede statutory lifetime registration for aggravated offenders)