Colorado’s second-highest court overturned a Jefferson County judge’s order on Thursday that subjected a defendant to lifetime sex offender registration, after she did not make findings about each of the required factors.

David Lamont White pleaded guilty to one count of attempted sexual assault. At his 2023 plea hearing, the defense and prosecution agreed District Court Judge Lindsay VanGilder could sentence White immediately, then determine later if he met the criteria for a “sexually violent predator.”

Under Colorado law, sexually violent predators are subject to lifetime sex offender registration. To qualify, they must be 18 years or older, convicted of certain offenses, commit the offense against certain types of people and, finally, be “likely to subsequently commit one or more” sexual offenses. In imposing the designation, judges must make findings about each of the factors.

At the hearing, VanGilder sentenced White to prison and noted she could not make findings about White’s likelihood of reoffending until he completed the mandatory assessment, which relies in part on a trained evaluator.

Days later, probation officials filed the assessment results. Among other things, White had a very high recidivism risk score.

“Based on the attached assessment, this Court finds Defendant meets criteria and qualifies as a Sexually Violent Predator,” VanGilder wrote an hour after the assessment was filed.

White appealed her decision, challenging both the assessment’s legitimacy and VanGilder’s brief order imposing lifetime registration on him.

“Here, the record contains no indication that the trial court performed the requisite analysis and made an individualized judgment as to the likelihood that Mr. White would be at a greater risk to reoffend,” wrote attorney James West. “Likewise, had the court fully reviewed the ‘completed’ (assessment) when it was filed, she would have seen that it was not properly filled out and had missing and contradictory information.”

In an Oct. 23 opinion, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed VanGilder’s order was insufficient under the circumstances.

Judge Stephanie Dunn noted White’s assessment contained inconsistencies about his prior convictions. Moreover, under the section that asked whether the evaluator agreed with White’s recidivism score, his evaluator left it blank.

“Given these irregularities, together with the lack of any specific findings on the SVP criteria,” wrote Dunn, the proper course is to order VanGilder to make “the specific findings required.”

The case is People v. White.