People v. Diaz, 150 A.D.3d 60

In 1989 defendant (then 19) fatally shot his 13‑year‑old half‑sister; he pled guilty in Virginia to first‑degree murder and a firearm enhancement and was sentenced to 40 years.
Virginia required him to register under its Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry because the victim was under 15, although the crime had no sexual component.
Upon moving to New York after parole, the New York Board applied Correction Law § 168‑a(2)(d)(ii) to require New York registration based on the out‑of‑state registry requirement.
The Board assessed risk points and invoked an automatic override; the SORA court ultimately adjudicated defendant a Level 3 sex offender.
The Appellate Division reviewed whether § 168‑a(2)(d)(ii), as applied, violated defendant’s substantive due process rights and annulled the sex‑offender adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applying Correction Law § 168‑a(2)(d)(ii) to require New York SORA registration for an out‑of‑state conviction that lacks a sexual component is constitutional under the Due Process Clause	NY: The statute is rationally related to legitimate goals — preventing New York from becoming a haven for out‑of‑state sex offenders and protecting the public; Virginia’s broader registry shows a plausible legislative basis	Diaz: No reasonable relation between his nonsexual murder of a minor and SORA’s goal of protecting the public from sex offenders; Virginia’s statute covers nonsexual crimes against minors and New York has not chosen to register such murders	The statute, as applied to Diaz’s nonsexual murder of a minor (conviction in Virginia that required registration only because the victim was under 15), is not rationally related to SORA’s purpose and thus violates substantive due process; Diaz’s SORA adjudication annulled
Whether the court needed to resolve defendant’s challenge to his assessed risk level or override	NY: SORA process and risk assessment are reviewable; Board’s determinations addressed in proceeding	Diaz: Primary challenge was mislabeling/constitutional; risk‑level reduction secondary	Court declined to reach reduction of risk level given annulment of registration; risk‑level issue not decided

People v. Knox, 12 N.Y.3d 60 (Court of Appeals) (upheld SORA registration for nonsexual kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment of minors as rationally related to SORA goals)
People v. Liden, 19 N.Y.3d 271 (Court of Appeals) (reviewability of out‑of‑state registration determinations in SORA proceedings)
People v. Kennedy, 7 N.Y.3d 87 (Court of Appeals) (interpreting elements of Correction Law § 168‑a(2)(d)(ii))
People v. Alemany, 13 N.Y.3d 424 (Court of Appeals) (describing SORA’s primary government interest in protecting vulnerable populations)
People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (Court of Appeals) (SORA’s protective purpose)
Matter of DeWine v. State of N.Y. Bd. of Examiners of Sex Offenders, 89 A.D.3d 88 (4th Dep’t) (distinguishable: involved out‑of‑state sexual offenses equivalent to New York sex crimes)