Opinion
No. 11–P–1080.
2012-11-7
John DOE, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 22959 v. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.
By the Court (CYPHER, BERRY & AGNES, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Doe appeals from a judgment affirming the Sex Offender Registry Board's (SORB) decision that Doe be required to register as a level three (high risk) offender. Doe argues that the administrative judge should have allowed his request for expert witness fees. We conclude, for substantially the reasons articulated by the administrative judge, that Doe has not carried his initial burden to “identify and articulate the reason or reasons, connected to a condition or circumstance special to him, that he needs to retain a particular type of expert.” Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764, 775 (2008).
Doe also argues that the administrative judge did not adequately consider certain mitigating or positive factors. It does not appear that Doe raised this before the Superior Court judge; therefore, we need not consider it. Nevertheless, it is readily apparent from the administrative judge's decision that he considered all such factors. It was within the administrative judge's province to assign weight (or not) to such factors. There is no merit to Doe's claim that mitigating or favorable factors were not available to him because the hearing occurred before his release. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779, 788 (2006).
Judgment affirmed.