ROGER DALE BRAY v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
June 16, 2006; 2:00 P.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-001037-MR
ROGER DALE BRAY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BARRY WILLETT, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 91-CR-000195
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
MINTON AND VANMETER, JUDGES; ROSENBLUM, SENIOR JUDGE.1
VANMETER, JUDGE:
Roger Dale Bray appeals from the Jefferson
Circuit Court’s order classifying him as a high-risk sex
offender.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
According to the trial court’s order, Bray was
sentenced on June 21, 1991, to ten years’ imprisonment after a
jury found him guilty of first-degree attempted rape, enhanced
to twenty years’ imprisonment because he was also found guilty
1
Senior Judge Paul W. Rosenblum sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
KRS 21.580.
of being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
In
anticipation of Bray’s release from prison, the trial court
conducted a sex offender risk assessment pursuant to former KRS
17.570.2
On June 8, 1999, the trial court entered an order
designating Bray as a high-risk sex offender.
On appeal, this
court affirmed with regard to Bray’s “challenges to the Sexual
Offender Registration Act (Megan’s Law), KRS 17.500-.578” but
vacated and remanded the case for a new hearing, consistent with
Hyatt v. Commonwealth.3
Accordingly, a second risk assessment
was held on December 5, 2003, in which Bray’s assessor
participated.
The trial court entered an order on March 17,
2005, again designating Bray as a high-risk sex offender.
This
appeal followed.4
Bray’s first argument is that the trial court erred by
allowing the Commonwealth’s Attorney to appear on behalf of the
Commonwealth at his assessment hearing.
We disagree.
Former KRS 17.570 provided as follows:
(1) Upon conviction of a “sex crime” as
defined in KRS 17.500 and within sixty
(60) calendar days prior to the
2
KRS 17.570 was enacted in 1998, effective January 15, 1999, and repealed
effective April 11, 2000.
3
Bray v. Commonwealth, No. 1999-CA-001568-MR (Ky.App. Aug. 23, 2002). Hyatt
v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566, 577 (Ky. 2002) requires inter alia “the
attendance of the author of the [sex offender risk assessment] report[.]”
4
Despite the Commonwealth’s contention, neither the doctrine of res judicata
nor the law of the case doctrine prevents us from reaching the merits of
Bray’s arguments.
-2-
discharge, release, or parole of a sex
offender, the sentencing court shall
order a sex offender risk assessment by a
certified provider for the following
purposes:
(a) To determine whether the offender
should be classified as a high, moderate,
or low risk sex offender;
(b) To designate the length of time a sex
offender shall register pursuant to KRS
17.500 to 17.540; and
(c) To designate the type of community
notification that shall be provided upon
the release of the sex offender pursuant
to KRS 17.500 to 17.540.
(2) The sex offender shall pay for any
assessment required pursuant to KRS
17.550 to 17.991 up to the offender’s
ability to pay but not more than the
actual cost of the assessment.
(3) In making the determination of risk, the
sentencing court shall review the
recommendations of the certified provider
along with any statement by a victim or
victims and any materials submitted by
the sex offender.
(4) The court shall conduct a
accordance with the Rules
Procedure and shall allow
offender to appear and be
hearing in
of Criminal
the sex
heard.
(5) The court shall inform the sex offender
of the right to have counsel appointed in
accordance with KRS 31.070 and 31.110.
(6) The sentencing court shall issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law
and enter an order designating the level
of risk.
-3-
(7) The order designating risk shall be
subject to appeal.
(8) Upon release, either by probation,
conditional discharge, parole, or
serve-out, the sentencing court or the
official in charge of the place of
commitment shall forward the risk
determination that the sentencing court
has issued for that sex offender to the
sheriff of the county to which the
offender is to be released.
Although this statute does not expressly authorize a
representative of the Commonwealth to appear at the assessment
hearing, the Commonwealth clearly has “a serious and vital
interest in protecting its citizens from harm” by classifying
and registering sex offenders, “which outweighs any
inconvenience that may be suffered because of the notification
and registration provisions.”5
Moreover, even if we assume, as
Bray contends, that sex offender risk assessment hearings are
civil in nature, KRS 69.010(1) provides in part that
the Commonwealth’s attorney shall, except in
Franklin County, attend to all civil cases
and proceedings in which the Commonwealth is
interested in the Circuit Courts of his
judicial circuit.
Further, there is no merit to Bray’s assertion that KRS
69.010(2) prohibits a Commonwealth’s Attorney from participating
in such a hearing, as it merely provides:
In each judicial circuit containing a city
of the first or second class or an
5
Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566, 574 (Ky. 2002).
-4-
urban-county government, the Commonwealth’s
attorney shall not be required to represent
the Commonwealth in any civil proceedings.
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, although the Commonwealth’s Attorney
may not be required to represent the Commonwealth in such
proceedings, he or she may choose to do so.
Finally, KRS
69.210, which defines the duties of the county attorney,
including attendance at certain civil proceedings, is irrelevant
to the determination of the duties of the Commonwealth’s
Attorney in regard to sex offender risk assessment hearings.
It
follows, therefore, that the trial court did not err by allowing
the Commonwealth’s Attorney to participate in Bray’s sex
offender risk assessment hearing.
Next, Bray argues that because he was assessed
pursuant to the sex offender registration scheme enacted in 1998
and described in KRS 17.570, the trial court erred by requiring
his registration information to be published on the Internet
pursuant to KRS 17.580, as enacted in 2000.6
We disagree.
As the Kentucky Supreme Court has explained, when the
Kentucky Registration and Notification Statutes for Sex
Offenders were first enacted in 1994,
6
The Commonwealth argues that this argument is not properly before this court
since Bray never allowed the trial court to rule on the issue before filing
his notice of appeal. Clearly, however, by ordering Bray to register, the
trial court ruled on the issue. We, therefore, proceed to address it as
well.
-5-
only those persons convicted of a qualifying
offense after July 15, 1994 were required to
register and the registration information
was not released to the public. 1994 Ky.
Acts, Ch. 392. In 1998, the law was changed
so as to provide that one determined to be a
sex offender was required to register after
a hearing by the sentencing court to
determine the offender’s risk level. Low
and moderate risk offenders were required to
register for ten years. High risk offenders
were required to register for life. The
1998 statute also provided for disclosure of
the registration information to certain
members of the public. 1998 Ky. Acts, Ch.
606.7
As to notification, between January 15, 1999, and April 11,
2000, KRS 17.572(1) provided in part as follows:
The following individuals shall be notified
by the sheriff of the county to which the
offender is to be released:
(a) The law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction;
(b) The law enforcement agency having had
jurisdiction at the time of the offender’s
conviction;
(c) Victims who have requested to be
notified;
(d) The Information Services Center,
Kentucky State Police;
(e) Any agency, organization, or group
serving individuals who have similar
characteristics to the previous victims of
the offender, if the agency, organization,
or group has filed a request for
notification with the local sheriff; and
7
Martinez v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Ky. 2002).
repealed effective April 11, 2000.
-6-
See KRS 17.572,
(f) The general public through statewide
media outlets and by any other means as
technology becomes available.
In 2000, the General Assembly “extended the
registration requirements to include an Internet Web site which
posted the relevant information of the convicted sex offender
including a photograph and address.”8
More specifically, KRS
17.580(1)9 instructed the Kentucky State Police to establish a
Web site displaying:
(a) The registrant information, except for
information that identifies a victim,
fingerprints, and Social Security numbers,
obtained by the Information Services Center,
Kentucky State Police, under KRS 17.510; and
(b) The sex offender information, except for
information that identifies a victim, Social
Security numbers, and vehicle registration
data, obtained by the Information Services
Center, Kentucky State Police, under KRS
17.510 prior to April 11, 2000.
The retroactive application of the 1998 and 2000
registration requirements was addressed by the Kentucky Supreme
Court in Hyatt v. Commonwealth.10
Hyatt, who had been sentenced
in 1993 to several consecutive prison terms, was assessed in
January 1999 as a high-risk sex offender pursuant to the 1998
8
Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Ky. 2002).
9
KRS 17.580(1) was effective April 11, 2000.
10
Hyatt, 72 S.W.3d at 571-574.
-7-
registration scheme.11
Hyatt challenged the court’s retroactive
application of the 1998 and 2000 statutes as violating his state
and federal protections against ex post facto legislation.12
The
supreme court held that while the registration statute
undoubtedly had been retroactively applied,13 the laws
do not punish sex offenders. They have a
regulatory purpose only. The dissemination
of information has never been considered a
form of punishment. The Act in question
does not impose any additional punishment on
Hyatt, and are not ex post facto laws under
either the United States Constitution or the
Kentucky Constitution.14
The court also held that any privacy interests Hyatt had in the
dissemination of his registration information were outweighed by
the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting its citizens.15
Further, the court implicitly affirmed the application of the
Internet publication statute to Hyatt.16
In the same opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court
considered the application of the 1998 version of KRS 17.500, et
11
Id. at 570.
12
Id. at 571.
13
Id.
14
Id. at 573.
15
Id. at 574.
16
See id. (“Public notification by means of the Internet has been determined
not to violate the right of privacy in other jurisdictions. The Court of
Appeals correctly found that neither the federal nor the state constitution
prohibited the disclosure of such information when the public health or
safety is involved.” (internal citations omitted)).
-8-
seq. to Nathaniel Sims after he was assessed as a high-risk sex
offender pursuant to those statutes.17
The court rejected Sims’s
argument that “the new punishment of Internet publicity under
the 2000 amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act [could
not] be imposed on him and that this Court must order a removal
of all information about him from the state police Web site.”18
Similarly, it cannot be said that the trial court erred by
requiring Bray’s registration information to be displayed on the
Internet pursuant to KRS 17.580, as enacted in 2000.
Further, Peterson v. Shake19 does not support Bray’s
argument.
In that case, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that
the Commonwealth could not prosecute Peterson for the Class D
felony of violating the 2000 registration scheme, as opposed to
the Class A misdemeanor of violating the 1998 registration
scheme.20
Unlike Hyatt and the matter now before us, Peterson
did concern an ex post facto law, i.e., one that “relate[s] to a
very real and direct effect on the actual time the prisoner
remains behind bars which could include an increase in
punishment.”21
Further, although the Peterson court did not
17
Id. at 577-580.
18
See id. at 578.
19
120 S.W.3d 707 (Ky. 2003).
20
Id. at 708.
21
See Hyatt, 72 S.W.3d at 571.
-9-
reach the issue of whether KRS 17.580 applied to the defendant,
it did note that the statute’s application did not violate his
“rights to due process under the federal or state
constitution.”22
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court
did not err by requiring publication of Bray’s registration
information on the Internet.
The Jefferson Circuit Court’s order is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
J. David Niehaus
Louisville, Kentucky
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
Tami Allen Stetler
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
22
Peterson, 120 S.W.3d at 710.
-10-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.