People v. Lezama - Sex Offender Classification Appeal
Summary
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed an order adjudicating a defendant a level three sexually violent predicate sex offender. The court found that the lower court improperly assessed points for prior convictions, potentially reclassifying the defendant to a presumptive level two offender.
What changed
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, reversed a lower court's determination that Bruce Lezama should be classified as a level three sexually violent predicate sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The appellate court found that the SORA court erred in assessing 30 points under risk factor 9 for a prior conviction, as the conviction date, not the commission date, is the relevant factor. This misapplication also affected the automatic override for a prior sex crime felony conviction. The court noted that without these points, the defendant's assessment would be 90 points, presumptively classifying him as a level two offender.
The matter has been remitted to the SORA court to determine if an upward departure to level three is warranted. The People's argument that the proceeding should have been barred by an earlier Kings County determination was deemed unpreserved and unavailing. This decision impacts the defendant's classification and requires a new risk assessment determination by the lower court.
What to do next
- Review the decision in People v. Lezama for potential impact on similar SORA cases.
- Ensure accurate calculation of points under SORA risk factor 9, considering conviction dates.
- Prepare for potential remands for re-determination of offender levels in cases with similar factual patterns.
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 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note
People v. Lezama
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01315
Docket Number: Ind. No. 2668/14; Appeal No. 6051; Case No. 2019-03841
Combined Opinion
People v Lezama (2026 NY Slip Op 01315)
| People v Lezama |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01315 |
| Decided on March 10, 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 10, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Scarpulla, González, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.
Ind. No. 2668/14|Appeal No. 6051|Case No. 2019-03841|
*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Bruce Lezama, Defendant-Appellant.**
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Robin Richardson of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Nicole Neckles of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2019, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remitted for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
As the People concede, the SORA court improperly assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 for prior violent felony, sex crime, or endangering welfare of a child. Defendant was assessed 30 points based on a March 2001 conviction, which occurred nearly one year after the commission of the crime underlying his conviction in June 2000. When assessing points under risk factor 9 for prior criminal history, the date of conviction or adjudication on the prior offense, not the date of the prior offense's commission, is the relevant date (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 13-14 [2006] [Guidelines]; see People v Franco, 106 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 863 [2013]). For the same reason, the automatic override for a "prior felony conviction for a sex crime" placing defendant at a presumptive level three was also misapplied (see Guidelines at 3, 19; People v Songster, 207 AD3d 579, 582 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 904 [2022]).
Without the 30 points, defendant's total point assessment would have been 90, rendering him a presumptive level two offender. Because the SORA court did not consider whether an upward departure was warranted, we remand the matter for such a determination (see People v Weber, 40 NY3d 206 [2023]; People v Reynoso, 224 AD3d 416, 417-418 [1st Dept 2024]).
The People's contention that the Bronx County SORA proceeding should have been barred by the earlier Kings County determination adjudicating defendant a level three offender is unpreserved (see People v Millan, 295 AD2d 267, 268 [1st Dept 2002]; see also People v Tolbert, 223 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2024]). In any event, the People's contention is unavailing (see People v Hirji, 170 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 907 [2019] [affirming a decision that adjudicated the defendant a level three and level two offender under two different indictments]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: March 10, 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.