Skip to main content

Mandatory sex offender registration requirement cannot be expunged even if the underlying misdemeanor offense is



California Penal Code §1203.4a provides that an individual convicted of a misdemeanor, who is not granted probation and who is not serving a current sentence for any offense may withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the misdemeanor after one year has passed from the imposition of the judgment. During the one year the individual must have served and complied with the sentence of the court. After the imposition of the judgment the individual must also have “lived an honest and upright life and . . . conformed to and obeyed the laws of the land.” Under §1203.4a the individual will be eligible to be released “from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.”

The California Court of Appeals in People v. Hamdon, 225 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2014) interpreted that “all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense” did not include California penal code § 290, which requires mandatory sex offender registration. The court stated that expungement of the misdemeanor offense under §1203.4a does not make the individual’s previous convictions a legal nullity. Therefore certain regulatory schemes which are not punishments are excepted from being expunged, such as licensing requirements for attorneys and doctors. The court saw the goal of mandatory sex offender registration as regulation designed for protecting the public and any retributive effects that resulted from it as being insufficient to justify the regulation being treated as a punishment.

The court pointed to California Penal Code §290.5 as the correct means for obtaining relief from mandatory sexual offender registration status. Section 290.5 provides that in order to get relief from mandatory sex offender registration an individual needs a certificate of rehabilitation, which can be obtained after having the underlying criminal offense expunged. Therefore even though Hamdon’s misdemeanor sexual battery conviction was expunged, his mandatory sex offender registration will not be dismissed until he is able to satisfy the requirements set forth in §290.5 for certificate of rehabilitation.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second Circuit Holds that Personal Benefit is Not Required for Insider Trading

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Rules for Miranda Warning

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...
Post a Comment
Read more

California Supreme Court Narrows Exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...
Post a Comment
Read more