The alternative procedure under this section may be used for sexually dangerous person evaluations if information that was not available to the court at the time of trial emerges in the course of a sex offender evaluation.
Examiners qualified by the Sex Offender Assessment Committee shall include in the assessment of any sex offender convicted of a sex offense a review as to whether the frequency, repetition over time, severity of trauma to the victim, or established pattern of predatory behaviors suggests that the sex offender is likely to engage in future predatory sexual offenses.
If a mental abnormality or personality disorder is suspected, a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist qualified by the committee may conduct further assessment to determine the presence or absence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder.
If further assessment under subdivision (a)(2)(B) of this section is conducted by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist qualified by the committee, the report of the further assessment shall be presented to the committee.
A sex offender may challenge an assigned risk level by submitting a written request for an administrative review.
As part of the request for an administrative review, the sex offender may request in writing copies of all documents generated by the examiners, a listing by document name and source of all documents that may be available from other agencies having custody of those documents, and a copy of the tape of the interview.
The request for an administrative review shall be made in accordance with instructions provided on the risk level notification and within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the advisement of risk level notification to the sex offender by certified mail and first-class mail.
The basis of the request for administrative review shall be clearly stated and any documentary evidence attached.
The basis for administrative review is:
The rules and procedures were not properly followed in reaching a decision on the risk level of the sex offender;
Documents or information not available at the time of assessment have a bearing on the risk that the sex offender poses to the community; or
The assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.
Unless a request for an administrative review is received by the committee within twenty (20) days of postmark of the advisement of risk level notification sent to the sex offender sent by certified mail and first-class mail or delivered by personal service, an offender fact sheet shall be made available to law enforcement so that community notification may commence. Receipt of the advisement of risk level notification will be presumed within five (5) days of postmark of the advisement of risk level notification by both certified mail and first-class mail.
If a request for an administrative review is received by the committee, the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction may make community notification at the level upon which administrative review has been requested.
A member of the committee shall conduct the review and respond within thirty (30) days of receiving a request for an administrative review.
If additional time is needed to obtain facts, the committee shall notify the sex offender requesting the review.
The findings of the administrative review shall be sent to the sex offender by certified mail. Community notification at the risk level assigned in the administrative review shall commence five (5) calendar days after the postmark of the advisement of the findings of the administrative review.
Upon receipt of the findings, the sex offender has thirty (30) days to file a petition under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., for judicial review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court or in the circuit court of the county where the sex offender resides or does business.
The circuit court shall refuse to hear any appeal of an assigned risk level by a sex offender unless the circuit court finds that the administrative remedies available to the sex offender under this subsection have been exhausted.
A copy of the petition for judicial review shall be served on the executive secretary of the committee in accordance with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
When the petition for judicial review has been served on the executive secretary of the committee, a record of the committee's findings and copies of all records in its possession shall be furnished by the committee to the circuit court within thirty (30) days of service.
The committee may ask the circuit court to seal statements of victims, medical records, and other items that could place third parties at risk of harm.
A ruling by the circuit court on the petition for judicial review is considered a final judgment.
Amendments.
The 2005 amendment made a stylistic change in (a)(1); deleted “After the effective date of this section” at the beginning of (a)(2)(A); and substituted “shall be” for “is” in (b)(1)(B).
The 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.) amendment rewrote (b).
The 2011 amendment, in (b)(5), substituted “the local enforcement agency having jurisdiction” for “law enforcement” and “at the level upon which” for “only at the level immediately below the level upon which”.
The 2013 amendment by No. 505 substituted “dangerous person” for “violent predator” in the section heading, and in (a)(1).
The 2013 amendment by No. 1129 inserted “administrative” in (b)(5).
Case Notes
Due Process.
Alleged sex offender's due process rights under the United States and Arkansas Constitutions were not violated by a determination that he was a Level 3 offender because he had a meaningful opportunity to be heard through a face-to-face interview and review by a sex offender assessment committee. A second face-to-face interview was not required.
Burchette v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 374 Ark. 467, 288 S.W.3d 614 (2008).
Final Judgment.
After an appeal of a sex offender adjudication was dismissed on the ground that it could not be concluded that appellant had received notice of the Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee's (SOSRA's) final decision, the court denied SOSRA's petition for rehearing because subdivisions (b)(6)(A) and (b)(7)(A) of this section required SOSRA to send “findings” to appellant, which proscription was consistent with the requirements of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-212(a).
Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening, 369 Ark. 290, 253 S.W.3d 901 (2007).
Procedure.
Trial court erred in dismissing as untimely appellant's petition for judicial review of an assessment declaring appellant to be a sex offender where the record did not contain any evidence that letters from the Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee were sent to appellant by certified mail, as required by subdivision (b)(7)(A)(i) of this section. Without proof that the letters were properly sent, it could not be said that either letter constituted a final decision under § 25-15-212(b).
Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening, 369 Ark. 290, 253 S.W.3d 901 (2007).
Where the Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee found that appellant was convicted of two separate sexual assaults on two separate women, admitted that he had been involved in forced sex acts, could not stand rejection, thought about raping, and said that raping made him feel better, there was substantial evidence to support the Committee's assessment of appellant as a level four offender. Because the Committee determined the presence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder by virtue of its review and assessment of appellant as a level four offender, the Committee complied with the provisions of subdivision (a)(2)(C) of this section.
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. 205, 307 S.W.3d 6 (2009).
Under §§ 12-12-913 and 12-12-917, and this section, the evidence supported the sex offender's Level 2 assessment where his victim was outside the home and a Level 1 assessment only required notification inside the home and to local law enforcement, which was insufficient; the offender also indicated refusal to participate in sex-offender treatment.
Gwaltney v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. App. 668 (2009).
This section gave the Sex Offender Assessment Committee authority to conduct its own assessment as to whether defendant was a sexually dangerous person.
Dillard v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2016 Ark. App. 147, 485 S.W.3d 701 (2016).
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 96דMunson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 29ד§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
Steven D. Mitchell v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4ד” The pertinent provision of the Sex Offender Registration Act, Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-922, which specifically governs sex-offender reassessment, states that, “[u]pon receipt of the findings, the sex offender has thirty (30) days to file a petition under the…”
Dillard v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2016 Ark. App. 147 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8דPursuant to A.C.A § 12-12-922, if during the course of a SOCNA assessment grounds are found for believing that an individual may be a SDP, that information will be presented to the SOAC by SOCNÁ.”
Edwards v. State, 2013 Ark. 434 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 2ד1 Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (b)(7)(A)(ii).”
Jones v. State, 2014 Ark. 135 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 2דArk. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (b)(7)(A)(ii); see also Munson, 369 Ark.”
Jones v. Payne (W.D. Ark. 2023). · cites it 9דArk. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (b)(1)(A); see also Weems, 453 F.”
Edwards v. State, 2014 Ark. 87 (Ark. 2014). “§ 12-12-922 (b)(7)(A)(ii). The Committee moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an untimely petition.”
John Patrick Cullen v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. App. 353 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6ד7 The dissent suggests that Cullen has merely sought judicial review of an agency’s decision with its citations to the APA and Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 . This, however, demonstrates the dissent’s apparent confusion over the order on appeal.”
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Dillard v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2016 Ark. App. 147 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “Pursuant to A.C.A § 12-12-922, if during the course of a SOCNA assessment grounds are found for believing that an individual may be a SDP, that information will be presented to the SOAC by SOCNÁ.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). “§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(B) — 1 case
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). “§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(C) — 1 case
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). “§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(7)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(1)(A) — 1 case
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(3) — 1 case
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). “§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(6)(A) — 3 cases
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Steven D. Mitchell v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). “” The pertinent provision of the Sex Offender Registration Act, Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-922, which specifically governs sex-offender reassessment, states that, “[u]pon receipt of the findings, the sex offender has thirty (30) days to file a petition under the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(7)(A)(i) — 2 cases
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Dillard v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2016 Ark. App. 147 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “Pursuant to A.C.A § 12-12-922, if during the course of a SOCNA assessment grounds are found for believing that an individual may be a SDP, that information will be presented to the SOAC by SOCNÁ.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(7)(A)(ii) — 3 cases
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 307 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. 2009). “§ 12-12-903(15); 11 (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.”
Jones v. Payne (W.D. Ark. 2023). “Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (b)(1)(A); see also Weems, 453 F.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(7)(B) — 1 case
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Munson v. Arkansas Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 253 S.W.3d 901 (Ark. 2007). “Munson requested an administrative review of the assessment under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922 (Supp.2005). After protracted correspondence between Munson and two SOSRA committee members, Munson received three letters containing ambiguous statements about the results of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.