FRY v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Wyrick, J.,

with whom Winchester, J., joins, dissenting:

¶ 1 We have previously — and repeatedly— held that sex offenders are .subject to the vei'sion of Oklahoma’s Sex Offender Registration Act1 (SORA) in effect on the date the offender became subject to the Act.2 Because he committed Ms sex crime in Oklahoma, Fry became subject to SORA upon the date of Ms 2002 conviction for rape by instrumentation.3 The version of SORA in effect at that time, 57 O.S.Supp.2002 584(H)(2), categorized Fry as an “aggravated sex offender” and required that he register as a sex offender for life. Indeed, under all…