Opinion
No. 11–P–763.
2012-05-29
John DOE, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 215373 v. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.
By the Court (KATZMANN, RUBIN, FECTEAU JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
John Doe appeals from the judgment issued by a judge of the Superior Court in favor of the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). Doe contends that the SORB erred in classifying him as a level one sex offender and requiring registration as such, as the decision was not based on substantial evidence. We affirm.
Doe was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a seventeen year old, unrelated, female acquaintance, and sentenced to a suspended one year term in a house of correction and a term of probation. At the time of the offense, Doe was twenty-six years old and already serving a term of probation on charges of resisting arrest, assault and battery on a police officer, and larceny. Prior to this predicate offense, Doe's criminal history was lengthy, both as a juvenile and as an adult, including property crimes, such as breaking and entering, larceny, receiving stolen property, among others, and crimes of violence, including assault and battery and malicious destruction of property. Throughout this lengthy history, Doe has frequently exhibited behavior noncompliant with the terms of his probation, resulting in the violation of said terms and conditions. After his conviction on the indecent assault and battery charge, the SORB intended to require Doe to register as a level two offender, from which Doe appealed for a de novo hearing, seeking relief from the registration requirement. While the hearing examiner denied the relief sought by Doe, and held that the SORB sufficiently demonstrated the need for Doe to register as a sex offender, the hearing examiner nevertheless considered various regulatory factors and the evidence presented, including evidence in mitigation of risk, to conclude Doe's risk of reoffending was low, necessitating a classification of level one. Doe subsequently filed a complaint for judicial review of this decision in the Superior Court.
A SORB classification decision “may only be set aside if the judge determines that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.” Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779, 787 (2006). “Substantial evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ “ Ibid., quoting from G.L. c. 30A, § 1(6). In affirming the decision, the Superior Court judge expressly concluded that Doe had failed to show that the SORB's decision lacked proper support by substantial evidence, or was otherwise arbitrary or capricious. We agree. The predicate offense, certainly when viewed in conjunction with a significant criminal history, a history that in turn reveals a consistent failure to comply with the terms of probationary supervision, as well as a risk of violence, is entirely sufficient to support the SORB's decision to require registration at a level one classification level.
Judgment affirmed.