RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0816-14T1

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT V.L.

__________________________________

Argued May 27, 2015 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent, Accurso and Manahan.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. 

ML# 03010049.

Seth R. Belson, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, argued the cause for appellant

V.L. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, 

attorney; Mr. Belson, on the brief). 

Erin M. Bisirri, Assistant Prosecutor, 

argued the cause for respondent State of New 

Jersey (James P. McClain, Atlantic County 

Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Bisirri, of 

counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

NUGENT, J.A.D.

V.L. is a registered sex offender. He appeals from a 

September 16, 2014 Law Division order reclassifying his risk of 

reoffense or Tier, previously designated as low or Tier 1, to 

moderate or Tier 2, the latter requiring notification of his 

presence in the community not only to certain law enforcement 

agencies but also to certain community institutions and 

organizations. V.L. contends the trial court erred in scoring 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

July 20, 2015

APPELLATE DIVISION

July 20, 2015
2 A-0816-14T1

the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS), the instrument used 

by prosecutors and courts to determine whether a sex offender 

presents a low (Tier 1), moderate (Tier 2), or high (Tier 3) 

risk of reoffense. Specifically, V.L. argues that RRAS 

criterion seven – length of time since last offense – applies to 

sex offenses only, and the trial judge erred by ruling to the 

contrary. Our review of the Att'y Gen. Guidelines for Law 

Enforcement for the Implementation of Sex Offender Registration 

and Cmty. Notification Laws (June 1998, rev'd Feb. 2007) (the 

Guidelines) leads us to agree with V.L. Accordingly, we reverse

and remand for a new tier hearing. 

The facts are undisputed. In 2003 V.L. pled guilty to 

fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b), a 

sex offense as defined in Megan's Law.

1 The court sentenced him 

to 364 days in jail and three years' probation. The court also 

ordered V.L. to comply with Megan's Law's registration 

provisions, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -5. These provisions require an

incarcerated sex offender to register with the chief law 

enforcement officer of the municipality in which the offender

proposes to reside upon release from jail or prison, 

 

1 Megan's Law refers to a group of bills concerning sex offenders 

that became law on October 31, 1994. L. 1994, c. 127-34. The 

term "sex offense" is defined in L. 1994, c. 133, §2 (N.J.S.A.

2C:7-2(b)). 
3 A-0816-14T1

periodically verify the address, and re-register upon a change 

of address.

Megan's Law's community notification provisions, N.J.S.A.

2C:7-6 to -10, require the chief law enforcement officer of the 

municipality where a sex offender resides to notify certain 

agencies and organizations of the sex offender's presence in the 

community. The extent of the notification depends upon the 

registrant's risk of reoffense. If a registrant's reoffense 

risk is low, law enforcement agencies likely to encounter the 

registrant must be notified. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8(c)(1). If the 

reoffense risk is moderate, community organizations "including 

schools, religious and youth organizations shall be notified[.]" 

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8(c)(2). If the reoffense risk is high, "the 

public shall be notified[.]" N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8(c)(3). A 

registrant's "tier" is determined in large part by the 

registrant's score on the RRAS.

In 2003, following V.L.'s release from his jail term for 

the sex offense, he was classified as a Tier 1 offender. 

Between 2003 and 2014, V.L. was convicted of crimes that 

included employing a juvenile in the commission of a crime, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:24-9, conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and shoplifting, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(b); possession of a controlled dangerous 

substance, cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); failing to verify 

his address, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(e); and burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. 
4 A-0816-14T1

In 2014, following V.L.'s release from his prison term for 

burglary and his notifying authorities of his intent to change 

his address, the county prosecutor sought to reclassify him as a 

Tier 2 offender. At the tier hearing, the court determined that 

V.L. fell within Tier 2. In reaching that determination, the 

court rejected V.L.'s argument that RRAS criteria seven, "Length 

of Time Since Last Offense," referred to sex offenses only. The 

court applied criterion seven to V.L.'s burglary conviction. As 

a consequence, V.L.'s overall score on the RRAS exceeded the 

maximum score for a low range or Tier 1 classification, and fell 

within the score for a moderate range or Tier 2 classification. 

V.L. appealed from the implementing order.

We begin our review with some fundamental observations 

about Megan's Law. The Legislature determined that the danger 

of recidivism posed by sex offenders and other designated 

predators "require[d] a system of registration that will permit 

law enforcement officials to identify and alert the public when 

necessary for the public safety." N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1a. Megan's 

Law's registration and notification provisions are intended to 

"provide law enforcement with additional information critical to 

preventing and promptly resolving incidents involving sexual 

abuse and missing persons." N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1b. 

The Legislature directed the Attorney General to 

"promulgate guidelines and procedures" for providing 
5 A-0816-14T1

notification to either law enforcement, community organizations, 

or the public, depending upon a sex offender's degree of risk of 

reoffense. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8. In so directing the Attorney 

General, the Legislature noted explicitly that 

Factors relevant to risk of re-offense shall 

include, but not be limited to, the 

following:

(1) Conditions of release that minimize risk 

of reoffense, including but not limited to 

whether the offender is under supervision of 

probation or parole; receiving counseling, 

therapy or treatment; or residing in a home 

situation that provides guidance and 

supervision;

(2) Physical conditions that minimize risk 

of reoffense, including but not limited to 

advanced age or debilitating illness;

(3) Criminal history factors indicative of 

high risk of reoffense, including: 

(a) Whether the offender's conduct was found 

to be characterized by repetitive and 

compulsive behavior;

(b) Whether the offender served the maximum 

term;

(c) Whether the offender committed the sex 

offense against a child;

(4) Other criminal history factors to be 

considered in determining risk, including:

(a) The relationship between the offender 

and the victim;

(b) Whether the offense involved the use of 

a weapon, violence, or infliction of serious 

bodily injury;
6 A-0816-14T1

(c) The number, date and nature of prior 

offenses;

(5) Whether psychological or psychiatric 

profiles indicate a risk of recidivism;

(6) The offender's response to treatment;

(7) Recent behavior, including behavior 

while confined or while under supervision in 

the community as well as behavior in the 

community following service of sentence; and

(8) Recent threats against persons or 

expressions of intent to commit additional 

crimes.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8b].

In response to the Legislative Directive, the Attorney 

General "convened a committee composed of mental health experts 

as well as members of the Law Enforcement Committee, which 

drafted the [RRAS] and the accompanying Registrant Risk 

Assessment Scale Manual (RRA Manual),

2 which explains the 

[RRAS]." In re Registrant C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 82 (1996). The 

RRAS, a copy of which is attached to this opinion as Appendix A, 

is divided into four categories: "Seriousness of Offense," 

"Offense History," "Characteristics of Offender," and "Community 

Support." Each category contains at least two of a total of 

thirteen criteria and each criterion is given a score of zero, 

one, or three, depending on whether the criteria as applied to 

the offender create a low, moderate, or high risk assessment 

 

2 The RRA Manual is included as "Exhibit E" in the Guidelines.
7 A-0816-14T1

correlating to a tier. The factors are then weighted by means 

of a multiplier. An overall score of 0 to 36 places an offender 

in Tier 1; 37 to 73, in Tier 2; and 74 to 111, Tier 3. 

This appeal requires us to interpret the Guidelines and the 

RRA Manual. Because such an interpretation presents a purely 

legal question, we owe no deference to the trial court and our 

review is plenary. State v. Pomianek, 221 N.J. 66, 80 (2015); 

Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 

378 (1995). 

The current RRA Manual explains:

The purpose of this assessment is to provide 

a method of notification to the public so as 

to address the concerns of the community 

regarding the location of convicted sex 

offenders who may be a risk of committing 

further offenses. The assessment process 

required by the statute is not intended to 

determine the actual probability of any one 

registrant reoffending. Rather, as the 

Court's opinion in Doe v. Poritz makes 

clear, the Legislature has already concluded 

that the nature of the offense, i.e., a sex 

offense, warrants notification at some 

level. "Therefore the probability of 

reoffense on the part of moderate- or highrisk offenders is not the issue before the 

court, but rather the relatively greater 

risk of reoffense compared either to the 

low-risk offender class or the moderate-risk 

offender class." Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 

34 (1995). Instead, using well recognized 

criteria, the panel has formulated a method 

of objectively placing registrants in tiers 

designed to provide the public with notice 

of the whereabouts of convicted sex 

offenders, such that the community will be 

better informed and prepared.
8 A-0816-14T1

[Guidelines, supra, Exhibit E at 1.]

Under the heading, "The likelihood that the defendant will 

recidivate," the RRA Manual states:

The expert panel reviewed existing risk 

assessment scales commonly used with sex 

offenders. In addition, the panel reviewed 

considerable research regarding predicting 

sex offender recidivism. These reviews of 

existing instruments and empirical 

literature led the panel to select risk 

assessment criteria that have demonstrated 

empirical support and common usage by sex 

offender experts. Other criteria which 

lacked such well-recognized empirical 

support were not included. These criteria 

can be divided into a few broad areas:

1.2.1. Intensity, duration, and frequency 

of illegal sexual behavior: Victim 

selection, number of offenses/victims, 

duration of offensive behavior, and length 

of time since last offense fall into this 

category. 

1.2.2. Antisocial lifestyle: History of 

antisocial acts (other than sex offenses), 

substance abuse, and employment/educational 

stability fall into this category.

1.2.3. Involvement in treatment: 

Response to treatment and therapeutic

support fall into this category.

1.2.4. Social support: Residential support 

falls in this category.

For ease of use, on the scale itself, these 

criteria were grouped as follows:

1. Seriousness of Offense

2. Offense History

3. Characteristics of Offender

4. Community Support 
9 A-0816-14T1

The latter three groups of criteria relate 

to the likelihood that the offender will 

recidivate. The first group are criteria 

that relate to the consequences to the 

community should the offender recidivate.

[Id. at 3-4.]

Section 1.2.1 contains an explicit statement that the

"length of time since last offense fall[s] into this 

category[,]" namely, "[i]ntensity, duration, and frequency of 

illegal sexual behavior[.]" 

In explaining how criterion seven – length of time since 

last offense – is used on the RRAS, the RRA Manual states: 

7. Length of time since last offense 

(while at risk) is related to likelihood of 

reoffense. The time counted in this 

criterion is only time at risk — that is, 

when the offender is in a situation in which 

he or she has ready, unsupervised access to 

potential victims. Time incarcerated or 

civilly committed does not count, given that 

most offenders do not commit offenses under 

those circumstances. If, however, evidence 

exists (such as documented institutional 

disciplinary charge) that the offender did 

commit a sexual offense while incarcerated, 

then this offense should be included in the 

time calculation. For juveniles, time spent 

in residential placement without furloughs 

should be treated similarly to incarceration 

for adults.

[Id. at 7.]

The RRA Manual's reference to a sex offense committed in 

prison is further evidence the expert panel and Attorney General 

intended that criterion seven apply only to sex offenses.
10 A-0816-14T1

Significantly, the "offense history" category on the RRAS 

includes criteria eight, "History of Anti-Social Acts." In 

explaining that category, the RRA Manual states:

8. History of antisocial acts is a good 

predictor of future antisocial acts, sexual 

and otherwise. The more extensive the 

antisocial history, the worse the prognosis 

for the offender. Antisocial acts include 

crimes against persons, crimes against 

property, and status offenses (for 

juveniles). Acts which are not the subject 

of criminal charges but that are credibly 

represented in the available records may be 

counted. For example, sexual deviancy not 

the subject of criminal prosecution may be 

counted in this category as long as it has 

not already been included in Factor 5 above. 

In this way, any "double-counting" will be 

avoided. Available documentation which can 

be considered may include evidence of 

truancy, behavior problems in school or in a 

work situation, school suspensions, work 

suspensions, prior diagnoses of conduct 

disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. 

Acts perpetrated while incarcerated or 

committed may be included.

[Id. at 8.]

The explicit inclusion in antisocial acts of crimes against 

persons and crimes against property, coupled with the cautionary 

note against double-counting, suggests that non-sex offenses 

should be included in criterion eight, but not in criterion 

seven.

The foregoing sections of the RRA Manual lead to a single 

conclusion concerning criterion seven: it refers to sex offenses

only, not to non-sex offenses. The quoted sections also lead to 
11 A-0816-14T1

the conclusion that non-sex offenses are included in category 

eight.

The State has offered no persuasive argument to the 

contrary.3 Although the State accurately summarizes the purpose 

of Megan's Law's notification requirements and correctly asserts 

that V.L.'s changing circumstances warranted recalculating his 

risk assessment, those considerations are not relevant to 

whether non-sex offenses should be included in RRAS criterion

seven.

The State also points to the definition of offense in 

N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14k, namely, "a crime, a disorderly persons 

offense or a petty disorderly persons offense unless a 

particular section in this code is intended to apply to less 

than all three[.]" Neither the Guidelines nor the RRA Manual, 

however, refer to or incorporate the definitional section of the 

New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.4 Were we to consider the 

definition of offense in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14k in a document that 

neither references it nor suggests in any way that it should be 

 

3 The State is not represented in this case by the Attorney 

General. The Attorney General has taken no position on the 

issue. 

4 This appeal was argued back-to-back with In re A.D., ___ N.J. 

Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015), which concerns the definition of 

the term offense in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14k and the use of the term in 

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2f, the Megan's Law provision that permits 

registrants to apply for termination of their registration 

obligations. 
12 A-0816-14T1

followed, we would also consider the prefatory language in 

N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14 that the definitions mean what they say 

throughout the Code "unless a different meaning plainly is 

required[.]" The context of the word offense in the RRA 

Manual's explanatory sections make plain that the term offense 

in criterion seven refers to a sex offense.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order classifying 

V.L. as a Tier 2 offender and remand for a Tier hearing. We do 

not suggest that V.L. should be classified or not classified in 

any Tier. Rather, we hold only that non-sex offenses are not to 

be included in criterion seven of the RRAS.

Reversed and remanded.
13

A-0816-14T1