LA - JACKSON v. STATE

Original Article

Excerpt:
On February 16, 1993, Jackson entered a plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La. R.S. 14:80. The conviction was based on Jackson, then twenty-three (23) years old, engaging in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). Jackson was sentenced to three (3) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on eighteen (18) months of active supervised probation. At the time of sentencing, it appears Jackson was not informed that he was required to register as a sex offender, nor was it listed as part of his probation. The probation period was successfully completed and Jackson was released from supervision on August 16, 1994.

On August 29, 1994, Jackson again engaged in consensual sex with a female under the age of seventeen (17). That encounter resulted in another plea of guilty to "Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" pursuant to La.R.S. 14:80. Pursuant to the plea, Jackson was sentenced to seven and one-half (7½) years with the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on five (5) years of active supervised probation. The requirement to register as a sex offender was made a condition of his probation, and Jackson registered as a sex offender on June 27, 1995. At that time, under La.R.S. 15:544, the registration period for sex offenders was ten (10) years. Jackson successfully completed his probation and was released from supervision on April 10, 2000.

Read the rest of the article

CA - PEOPLE v. POSLOF

Original Article

Excerpt:
Defendant Poslof appeals his jury conviction for failing to register as a sex offender in Twenty-Nine Palms, in violation of Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g)(2).1 In a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true allegations that defendant had two prior convictions for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child,2 which [24 Cal.Rptr.3d 265] qualified as serious or violent felonies,3 and had served two prior prison terms and failed to remain free of prison custody for five years.4 The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 27 years to life in state prison.

Defendant contends he was unaware he had an obligation to register as a sex offender in Twentynine Palms. He therefore claims there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding he willfully failed to register as a sex offender in violation of section 290. Defendant also contends the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on the "willfulness" requirement and compounded the error by giving the general intent instruction, CALJIC No. 3.30.

Additionally, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero5 motion and his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California and United States Constitutions.

Following our earlier opinion in this case affirming the trial court judgment, the California Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court has transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our earlier decision and reconsider the cause in light of its recent decision, People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507. Having done so, we again affirm the judgment.

Read the rest of the article

MA - DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 29481 v. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD

Original Article

Excerpt:
The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment that affirmed the denial of his request for expert funds and affirmed the final decision of the Sex Offender Registry Board (board) which, after a de novo hearing, ordered the plaintiff to register as a level three (high risk) offender. On appeal, the plaintiff essentially argues that (1) the hearing examiner's decision [84 Mass. App. Ct. 538] is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) a remand for a new hearing is necessary due to the bias of the hearing examiner, and (3) a remand is also required because it was an abuse of discretion to deny his motion for funds to obtain expert evidence to explain that he poses a lower risk of recidivism because of mental illness and his age (fifty-eight at the time of the hearing). Due to the bias of the hearing examiner, the decision of the board must be vacated and the plaintiff must be afforded a new classification hearing.

Read the rest of the article

MN - STATE v. HANSON

Original Article

Excerpt:
In 1996, appellant Hanson was charged with rape, misdemeanor indecent exposure, and first-degree burglary in California. The rape charge was dismissed, but appellant was convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure and first-degree burglary. On this basis, appellant is allegedly required to register as a predatory offender in Minnesota.

Appellant moved to Minnesota in 2004 and registered with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) as a predatory offender. In February 2009, he was incarcerated for domestic assault. He was paroled in January 2010 and registered his change of address with the BCA in February 2010. In April 2010, he moved to the Cochran halfway house in Hastings, allegedly at the direction of his corrections officer, but did not register his new address. When asked by Cochran counselors, appellant twice denied being a sex offender. In June 2010, Cochran informed local police that appellant's corrections officer reported appellant as an unregistered predatory offender. Police met with appellant, who claimed that he thought his corrections officer had registered his recent change of address, as the officer had done in the past. Appellant's corrections officer advised the police that he had not registered appellant's change of address and that appellant was responsible for doing so. The state charged appellant with failing to register as a predatory offender.

Appellant pleaded guilty. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing reveals that the parties and the district court believed that appellant was required to register because he had been convicted of a crime in California arising out of the same set of circumstances for which he was initially charged with rape, and he violated the registration statute by lying to Cochran counselors about his status as a sex offender. Accordingly, appellant testified that he (1) knew he was required to register as a predatory offender, (2) never notified the BCA of his new address, and (3) falsely told Cochran counselors that he was not a convicted sex offender. The district court accepted appellant's plea and convicted him of the charged offense. This appeal follows.

Read the rest of the article

WA - STATE v. GUERRERO

Original Article

Excerpt:
In 1983, Guerrero pleaded guilty to two counts of rape in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree. Guerrero was sentenced in February 1984 by the Honorable James McCutcheon. The judgment and sentence was signed by Judge McCutcheon, defense attorney Wes Hohlbein, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) Jeff Baird. Guerrero was granted a 10 year deferred sentence.

Guerrero complied with the conditions of his deferred sentence, and his supervision by the Department of Corrections was terminated on March 18, 1994. In 2004, however, Guerrero was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. Although Guerrero was acquitted of this charge,1 his offender level was changed, he lost his job, and he subsequently encountered significant difficulties obtaining new employment.

Guerrero thereafter petitioned the sentencing court for an order dismissing the 1983 charges and for relief from the requirement that he register as a sex offender. Guerrero argued that the 1994 order terminating supervision by the Department of Corrections effectively operated as an order of dismissal. The State opposed Guerrero's petition.

Read the rest of the article