Brown v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                  Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 236
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION I
    No.CV-13-876
    Opinion Delivered   April 16, 2014
    DAVID BRIAN BROWN                                 APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN
    APPELLANT          COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    [No. CV-2013-6]
    V.
    HONORABLE DENNIS CHARLES
    SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT                           SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE
    COMMITTEE
    APPELLEE                     AFFIRMED
    LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
    On August 13, 2007, appellant David Brown was found guilty of third-degree battery in
    Sebastian County District Court, Fort Smith Division. Although his incarceration was not due
    to a crime of a sexual nature, because Brown had a history of “non target” sexual offenses, he
    was required to appear for an assessment interview with the Sex Offender Assessment
    Committee (“Committee”) upon his release from incarceration. The Committee initially assessed
    him as a “Level 3 Offender” by default, because he did not appear for review. However, he
    argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing, and there was evidence that supported that
    contention (the hearing notification had the incorrect street number). Our court remanded after
    holding that the administrative decision did not contain sufficient findings of fact and
    conclusions of law for the court to review.
    On remand, the Committee assessed Brown at a Level 3, and Brown filed his petition for
    circuit-court review. The circuit court affirmed the Commission in an order dated June 13, 2013.
    Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 236
    On July 8, 2013, Brown filed his notice of appeal with our court alleging that 1) the court erred
    in requiring mandatory sex-offender registration; 2) the Committee improperly assigned him
    Level 3 status; and 3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
    Judicial review of Committee assignments of community-notification levels is governed
    by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-201 (Repl. 2012). The
    limited scope of judicial review pursuant to the APA is premised on the recognition that
    administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and
    more flexible procedures than courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their
    agencies. Williams v. Ark. State Bd. of Physical Therapy, 
    353 Ark. 778
    , 
    120 S.W.3d 581
    (2003).
    Under the APA, the court may reverse or modify an agency decision if it prejudices the rights
    of the petitioner because the administrative findings, inferences, or decision, are not supported
    by substantial evidence. Olsten Health Servs., Inc., v. Ark. Health Servs. Comm’n, 
    69 Ark. App. 313
    ,
    
    12 S.W.3d 656
    (2000). It is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct
    a de novo review of the record; rather, the review is limited to ascertaining whether there is
    substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul
    of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h). Wacaser v. Ins. Comm’r, 
    321 Ark. 143
    ,
    
    900 S.W.2d 191
    (1995).
    It is Brown’s burden to prove that there is an absence of substantial evidence, which is
    given the strongest probative force in favor of the agency’s ruling. McQuay v. Ark. State Bd. of
    Architects, 
    337 Ark. 339
    , 
    989 S.W.2d 499
    (1999). The question is not whether the testimony
    would have supported a contrary finding, but whether it would support the finding made. 
    Id. at 2
                                       Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 236
    345, 989 S.W.2d at 501
    –02. It is the prerogative of the board to believe or disbelieve any witness
    and to decide what weight to accord the evidence. 
    Id., 989 S.W.2d
    at 502.
    As to Brown’s first point on appeal, the Committee has no authority to require an
    individual convicted of a sex offense to register as a sex offender. Registration of sex offenders
    is not an administrative function. Instead, it is the responsibility of the sentencing court and local
    law enforcement to make the determination of who does and does not fit the classification of
    sex offender. The Committee is charged only with the assessment of a sex offender, which
    involves a determination of the degree of legal notice that the community and law enforcement
    is to receive; and that determination is subject to judicial review. Therefore, the only thing we
    can review is the assessment of the notice level required of Brown as a sex offender, not the
    classification of him as a registration-required sex offender.
    As to the actual assessment of Brown, we are satisfied that the Committee followed its
    procedures and correctly assessed Brown at a Level 3. The record shows that he was a repeat
    sexual offender; that alone supports the Committee’s Level 3 assessment. On February 2, 2006,
    Brown was convicted of two separate offenses occurring on November 4 and 5, 2005, where
    Brown exposed himself to a minor or female victim. And his conviction on March 10, 2005,
    included another conviction of indecent exposure to male victims ages seven and eight,
    occurring on November 11, 2004. He also admitted (during his interview) to another incident
    of indecent exposure in August 2003. Brown’s documented tendency to expose himself to
    minors and strangers resulted in an antisocial-personality diagnosis, which also supports the
    Committee’s Level 3 assessment.
    3
    Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 236
    Further, the Committee complied with its own established actuarial-determination
    process in assessing Brown’s “risk” score (based on the STATIC-99 score). The score that
    Brown received placed him in the “Moderate-High” risk category—between 62 and 88
    percentile for risk of reoffense relative to other adult male sex offenders. And, contrary to
    Brown’s argument, it is not required that he be assessed in the “High” category to receive a
    Level 3 assessment. There is no set correlation between the percentiles and the assessment level;
    instead, it is merely a tool for evaluation, and the Committee is free to believe or disbelieve any
    witness, evidence, or testimony. Ark. Bd. of Exam’rs v. Carlson, 
    334 Ark. 614
    , 
    976 S.W.2d 934
    (1998). Here, there was more than substantial evidence to support the Level 3 assessment.
    Taking Brown’s anti-social personality diagnosis, a separate incident of physical, non-sexual
    violence, his admission in the interview process, the fact that minors were often involved, and
    that he had numerous offenses (including multiple stranger victims), we agree that the
    Committee accurately assessed the level of community notice required of Brown under its own
    procedures and discretion.
    Affirmed.
    PITTMAN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
    The Baker Law Firm, by: Rinda Baker, for appellant.
    Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Amy L. Ford, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-13-876

Judges: Larry D. Vaught

Filed Date: 4/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/14/2017