People v. Johnson - Sex Offender Registration Act Adjudication
Summary
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's decision adjudicating Clayton Johnson a level three predicate sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court found that the defendant's extensive criminal history, including prior convictions for rape and forcible touching, demonstrated a high risk of recidivism, outweighing any mitigating factors.
What changed
The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the adjudication of Clayton Johnson as a level three predicate sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The court denied the defendant's request for a downward departure to a level two classification, citing his extensive criminal history, which includes convictions for rape, forcible touching, indecent exposure, and assault. This decision upholds the lower court's determination and the assigned offender level.
This ruling has implications for individuals adjudicated under SORA, reinforcing the importance of criminal history in risk assessment. For legal professionals representing defendants in SORA cases, this decision highlights the court's emphasis on prior convictions when evaluating risk and determining offender levels. While no specific compliance deadline is mentioned, the affirmation means the defendant must comply with the registration requirements associated with a level three offender.
What to do next
- Review defendant's criminal history and risk assessment factors in SORA cases.
- Advise clients on the implications of prior convictions for offender level determination.
Penalties
Adjudication as a level three predicate sex offender, requiring compliance with SORA registration and notification requirements.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note
People v. Johnson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01169
Docket Number: Ind. No. 71019/21; Appeal No. 5990; Case No. 2023-01538
Combined Opinion
People v Johnson (2026 NY Slip Op 01169)
| People v Johnson |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01169 |
| Decided on March 03, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: March 03, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Shulman, Higgitt, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.
Ind. No. 71019/21|Appeal No. 5990|Case No. 2023-01538|
*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Clayton Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.**
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec D. Miran of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Amanda Katherine Regan of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level three predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure to a level two predicate sex offender (see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]) and we perceive no basis to substitute our discretion for that of the court. The mitigating factors presented by defendant are outweighed by his extensive criminal history, including a prior rape conviction, a prior forcible touching conviction, and numerous indecent exposure and assault convictions, all of which demonstrate his "high risk of recidivism" (People v Doctor, 108 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 866 [2013]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: March 3, 2026
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when New York Appellate Division publishes new changes.