NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

Utah v Briggs

12-12-2008 Utah:

Utah v Briggs
199 P.3d 935 (2008)

Steven Arthur Briggs was convicted for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of Utah Code section 77-27-21.5 ("registration statute" or "statute").1 Briggs challenges the constitutionality of the statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
--First, Briggs argues that the statute violates the non-delegation doctrine of the Utah Constitution because it delegates legislative power to the Department of Corrections ("DOC"), an executive agency.

--Second, Briggs argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction that he "knowingly" failed to register.

--Finally, Briggs argues that the statute violates his right to procedural due process because it designates him as a currently dangerous sex offender without notice and an opportunity to be heard on the validity of that designation.

We conclude that Briggs's non-delegation and insufficiency of the evidence claims are without merit.

As to Briggs's procedural due process argument, we hold that the provisions of the registration statute requiring him to register and requiring the DOC to publish information related to his prior convictions, current address, appearance, and other similar information do not violate his right to procedural due process. Thus, we affirm his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender.

However, we hold that the provision in the registration statute that requires the DOC to publish his primary and secondary targets, implying that he is currently dangerous, violates his right to procedural due process unless the DOC provides him with notice and an opportunity to be heard as to whether he is currently dangerous.

Accordingly, the DOC may not publish information implying that Briggs is currently dangerous unless it proves as much at a hearing where Briggs has notice and an opportunity to be heard on the validity of that designation.

No comments: