Request to be removed from the sex offender registry under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Facial & as-applied constitutional challenges; Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Kardasz; Case law concerning life without parole (LWOP)

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its decision in Kardasz, the court again affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s request to be removed from the SORA sex offender registry. He was charged as an adult with CSC I for an incident involving a 14-month-old victim when defendant was 16. He pled guilty to CSC II. He sought to extend the case law holding LWOP sentences “unconstitutional when applied to 18-year-olds.” But the Supreme Court acknowledged in Kardasz that “a defendant must show that there are no circumstances in which the punishment would be valid to succeed on a facial proportionality challenge.” In fact, it “concluded that Tier III offenders committed the most severe registrable offenses, were subject to the most onerous 2021 SORA requirements, and held that the 2021 SORA was not grossly disproportionate in all instances.” In addition, it “acknowledged the harshness of automatic lifetime imprisonment without consideration of mitigating factors for young offenders was distinguishable.” The court could not see “a valid rationale for exempting juvenile offenders sentenced as adults from 2021 SORA requirements, particularly when the burden of establishing a successful facial proportionality challenge was not met.” While the 2021 SORA is “punishment, its punishment is commensurate with the tiered offense committed and the offender may petition for removal if certain requirements are met.” The court found that the lifetime registration punishment “does not rise to the level of” LWOP. It also concluded “that the offense’s commission, by a youthful offender, does not warrant divergent treatment.” The record showed that he “was diverted to a juvenile facility and was under the care and treatment of mental health professionals for years. He was” allowed to plead to the reduced CSC II charge “and remanded for mental health treatment. But [he] failed to comply with the facility rules and to obey the staff. In fact, he preyed on vulnerable peers and engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors.” The court concluded that his “manipulative acts and sexual impulses controvert his reliance on mental illness and the need to remand for an evidentiary hearing.” It also appeared that his “attorneys did not submit his medical records. In light of the facts, as applied to the facially valid law, defendant failed to prove invalidity.”