Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sarna v. Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Committee
Citations: 537 S.W.3d 312; 2017 Ark. App. 684Docket: No. CV-17-48
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 13, 2017; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Christopher Sarna appeals the circuit court's affirmation of the Sex Offender Assessment Committee's (SOAC) reassessment of his community-notification status and the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Sarna pled nolo contendere in 1997 to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 36 months in prison, along with a requirement to register as a sex offender. Initially assessed at community-notification level 2 in 1998, Sarna petitioned in 2015 to terminate his registration obligation, asserting he posed no threat and had completed the required fifteen years. However, the Sevier County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney requested a reassessment by the Sex Offender Screening Risk Assessment Committee (SOSRAC), resulting in Sarna being assigned a level 3 status. Sarna contested the level 3 assessment during an administrative review, arguing against the evidence's sufficiency, the accuracy of tools used, procedural errors, and the consideration of noncriminal conduct. An independent evaluator suggested potential false statements against him. The SOAC upheld the level 3 assessment, citing new information that warranted the change. Sarna appealed this decision, claiming the reassessment lacked authorization, thus violating SOAC rules, and contended the circuit court improperly denied his in forma pauperis petition without required findings. The court affirmed the SOAC’s decision, referencing Arkansas law that mandates reassessment under certain conditions and allows local law enforcement or other authorized entities to request such assessments. Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-917(h)(2)(A) designates the local law enforcement agency, specifically the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality where a sex offender resides, as having jurisdiction. Consequently, the Sevier County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney lacked authority to request a risk-level reassessment, constituting a statutory violation. Sarna was obligated to bring the issue of the deputy prosecutor’s unauthorized request to the Sex Offender Assessment Committee (SOAC), which he failed to do until his appeal to the circuit court. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, issues must be raised before the relevant administrative agency to be considered by the court, as established in Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening Risk Assessment Comm. Due to Sarna's failure to raise the authority issue with the SOAC, the court is precluded from addressing it. Additionally, Sarna contended that the circuit court did not issue required findings regarding his indigency when denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the circuit court did not make the necessary findings as per Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this issue is deemed moot as Sarna's appeal has been denied. The judgment is affirmed, with agreement from Gruber, C.J. and Harrison, J. The document also notes the historical context of courts being divided into circuits following Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution in 2001.