Opinion ID: 2318875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Court's failure to specify Haskell's status as either a sex offender or a sexually violent predator is a harmless error.

Text: [¶ 23] Section 11222 of SORNA provides that [t]he court shall determine at the time of the conviction if a defendant is a sex offender or a sexually violent predator. A person who the court determines is a sex offender or a sexually violent predator shall register according to this subchapter. 34-A. M.R.S.A. § 11222 (Supp.2000). [¶ 24] The trial judge did not appear to make an express determination as to whether Haskell was a sex offender or a sexually violent predator. See 34-A M.R.S.A. § 11203 (Supp.2000). [14] At the sentencing hearing, the judge merely placed an X in the box on a form, entitled Judgment and Commitment, in the following manner: [ X ] IT IS ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN CONVICTED AS A SEX OFFENDER, SATISFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT. (34-A MRSA Ch. 15) YOU MUST SUBMIT TO THE TAKING OF YOUR FINGERPRINTS AND A PHOTOGRAPH AS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF DUTY TO REGISTER. This represents the only form, signed by the trial judge, that references Haskell's responsibilities and status for the purposes of SORNA. On the same date, however, two additional forms  signed by Haskell  were completed by an unidentified individual  probably the Clerk of the Superior Courtclearly and unambiguously classifying Haskell as a sexually violent predator. These latter forms were not signed by the trial judge, but the record indicates Haskell received and signed copies of all three forms. [¶ 25] Haskell contends that, by checking the box on Judgment and Commitment form, the trial judge made a specific determination, for the purposes of 34-A M.R.S.A. § 11222, that Haskell is a sex offender. Because the sexually violent predator, rather than the sex offender, label covers the offense with which he was charged, Haskell argues, without supporting authority, that the court's noncompliance with the SORNA labelling requirements constitutes an incorrectible error, which makes void the application of SORNA to him. Neither he, nor the State, discusses the implications of the other forms to this analysis. [¶ 26] Looking at the three forms, however, we cannot say that the trial judge, by merely checking a box in the judgment and commitment form, was making a determination as to Haskell's classification for the purposes of section 11222. That form references 34-A M.R.S.A.ch. 15-SORNA  only generally; it does not identify specific provisions. Consequently, by checking the box in question, the judge could only be said to be giving Haskell notice of his registration obligations under SORNA. There is no basis for Haskell's contentions that the court had affirmatively categorized him as a sex offender, particularly since the accompanying forms  completed on the same date  perform the specific task proscribed by section 11122. [¶ 27] The court's failure itself to specifically make that determination in this case is a harmless error. As noted above, the forms accompanying and completed on the same day as the Judgment and Commitment makes the appropriate section 11122 classification; thus, it cannot be said that notice to Haskell is an issue. Further, as Haskell himself recognizes, a person who is convicted of the crime of unlawful sexual contact pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C) can only be classified as a sexually violent predator. 34-A M.R.S.A. § 11203(7)(A) & (8)(A) (Supp. 2000). There is no alternate category requiring a ruling that involves judicial discretion. Accordingly, we find the court's failure to specifically classify Haskell as a sexually violent predator constitutes a harmless error. [15] The entry is: Judgment affirmed.