On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment no. 10-09-01568-A.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kestin, J.A.D.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Rodriguez,*fn1
Kestin, and Newman.
The opinion of the court was delivered by KESTIN, J.A.D. (retired, temporarily assigned on recall).
Registrant, P.B., a person subject to the requirements of law governing registration of sex offenders and establishing post-release community notification standards, commonly known as "Megan's Law," N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, appeals from a January 31, 2012 Law Division order finding a Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS) score of 54, in the middle range of "risk to re-offend," and mandating, among other provisions, notification of local law enforcement and "all public and private educational institutions and registered community organizations . . . located within a one mile radius of registrant's home[,]" as well as placement on the Internet registry. The trial court denied registrant's request to stay the local notification provisions, but stayed the requirement for Internet registration pending appeal.
The order memorialized the trial court's findings, made on the record following oral argument. The written order contained the following recitations:
* the State properly tiered registrant based on the contents of the images of child pornography and victim characteristics . . . [reflected in] factors 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the RRAS scale;*fn2
* registrant's interpretation of the RRAS scale as it relates to tiering Internet and child pornography offenders based upon the victim characteristics of child pornography images and videos is hereby rejected[;]
* interpretation [by registrant's expert] of the RRAS scale as it relates to Internet offenders is hereby rejected[;]
* the Tier II Classification of Registrant . . . as previously determined by the State is affirmed[.]
Registrant advances the following arguments on his appeal from the trial court's disposition:
THE TIERING WAS INCORRECT, INTER ALIA, FOR IT COUNTED 15 POINTS FOR ITEM 2, DEGREE OF CONTACT (PENETRATION) AND 3 POINTS FOR ITEM 6, DURATION OF BEHAVIOR (1 TO 2 YEARS). POINT II [THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE'S] RULING FURTHER EXCEEDS AND DISTORTS THE UNPUBLISHED RULING OF IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT B.C., A-406-10-T1, DECIDED OCTOBER 7, 2010, AND VIOLATES THE PRINCIP[LES] LAID DOWN IN THE LANDMARK CASE OF IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT G.B., 147 N.J. 62 (1996).
POINT III [REGISTRANT]'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WAS VIOLATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION[S] OF NEW JERSEY AND THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THE COURT ALLOWED ARGUMENT TO TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF [REGISTRANT]'S COUNSEL, WHICH ARGUMENT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AND EVEN ORDERED TO BE PLACED IN HIS FINAL ORDER AND BECAUSE THE COURT CITED AN UNPUBLISHED CASE AND ALLOWED THE STATE TO CITE AN UNPUBLISHED CASE AS AUTHORITY FOR THE COURT[']S ACTION, WITHOUT PROVIDING COUNSEL WITH A COPY . . . OF [THE] CASE WHICH WAS RELIED UPON[.]
A [RIGID] APPLICATION OF THE RRAS SCALE HERE IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTIFICATION LAWS, IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED [STATES] CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS A VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY'S DOCTRINE OF ...