People v. Parris
153 A.D.3d 68
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- In 2007, then-17-year-old Karl Parris forcibly pushed a jogger to the ground, exposed himself, rubbed his penis against her vagina and attempted penetration; he later admitted penetration in a felony complaint.
- Parris was convicted after pleading guilty to first-degree sexual abuse in October 2008 and sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment plus five years postrelease supervision.
- Pre-release, the Board of Examiners prepared an RAI and recommended a presumptive Level 3 designation (115 points); the Board cited prior violent and institutional misconduct and ongoing serious mental-health needs.
- At the July 16, 2012 SORA risk-assessment hearing, Parris became disruptive and was removed; the court proceeded in his absence and assessed points (including 25 under risk factor 2), yielding a Level 3 designation.
- Defense contended the court should have ordered a competency examination before proceeding because Parris appeared unable to comprehend the proceedings; the People argued no competency hearing was requested and SORA contains no such requirement.
- The Appellate Division affirmed: court did not violate due process by holding the SORA hearing without ordering a competency examination, and the 25-point assessment under risk factor 2 was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated due process by not ordering a competency exam before SORA hearing | People: SORA requires judicial determination but no competency exam; proceeding was proper | Parris: court should have sua sponte ordered competency exam because he could not meaningfully participate | Court: No due process violation; Mathews balancing supports proceeding without competency exam given SORA's remedial purpose and available protections |
| Whether Parris waived right to be present by disruptive conduct | People: disruptive conduct justified proceeding in absence | Parris: conduct was irrational due to mental illness, not an intentional waiver | Court: Waiver not established; but removal was appropriate and proceeding still permissible without competency exam |
| Whether 25 points under risk factor 2 (sexual intercourse) were properly assessed | People: complainant’s report and defendant’s admission support penetration (however slight) | Parris: no evidence of penetration | Court: Clear and convincing evidence established penetration; 25 points properly assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (sets three-factor balancing test for what process is due)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process is flexible; protections tailored to context)
- Matter of Lopez v. Evans, 25 N.Y.3d 199 (N.Y. 2015) (parole-revocation hearings require competency; distinguishes parole from SORA)
- People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406 (N.Y. 2010) (describes SORA as civil scheme determining risk)
- People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (N.Y. 2009) (discusses SORA’s registration and notification framework)