Court deliberates legality of sentencing in video voyeurism case of Cofer

The Alabama Supreme Court convened on June 11, 2025, to address significant legal questions surrounding a probation sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of video voyeurism. The discussions centered on the interpretation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) and the implications of the trial court's original sentencing decisions.

The meeting began with inquiries regarding whether the trial court had informed the defendant about the requirements of SORNA at the time of sentencing. It was established that the defendant was indeed required to register as a sex offender, and the trial judge had indicated this during the original sentencing. The prosecution argued that the trial judge's acknowledgment of SORNA during sentencing provided the defendant with clear notice that his actions were considered a sex crime.

The court then examined the probationary term initially set at eight years. The prosecution contended that the trial judge had initially misunderstood the applicable probation limits, believing they were restricted to three years. However, upon clarification from the state, the judge recognized that the nature of the offense warranted a longer probation period due to the high recidivism rates associated with sex offenders.

A key point of contention arose regarding the validity of a subsequent sentence imposed after the case was remanded back to the trial court. While the defense acknowledged that the new sentence was lawful, they argued that the order directing the court to impose it was erroneous. The defense maintained that the defendant had already served a substantial portion of his sentence, which included mandated counseling.

The prosecution emphasized that the trial judge had considered the severity of the defendant's actions, which included multiple instances of voyeurism, and deemed the eight-year probation necessary for public safety. They argued that the defendant had been aware of the charges against him and the legal implications, thus negating any claims of ex post facto violations or double jeopardy.

In conclusion, the Alabama Supreme Court's deliberations highlighted the complexities of sentencing in sex offense cases, particularly regarding the application of SORNA and the interpretation of probationary terms. The court's decision will have significant implications for the defendant and potentially set precedents for future cases involving similar offenses. Further discussions and rulings are anticipated as the court continues to evaluate the legal arguments presented.