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.

Doe v DPSCS

Maryland's Ct of Appeals is it's highest ct. and equates to blog's State Sup ct. Hence above labeling.

6-30-2014
Doe II v DPSCS

In Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 430 Md. 535, 62 A.3d 123 (2013) ("Doe I"), we addressed the Maryland sex offender registration statute, Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2013 Cum.Supp.), § 11-701 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Article (hereinafter all section references to the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code are identified as "Crim. Proc. §") and held that the retroactive application of the provisions we deemed punitive violated the ex post facto prohibition contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. This Court's plurality opinion in Doe I specifically excluded any analysis of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 101-155, 120 Stat. 587, 590-611 (2006) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 2250). We stated, "[a]s [Doe's] federal obligations are not before us, we need not, and do not, address the issue of whether they require him to independently register." Doe I, 430 Md. at 544, 62 A.3d at 128.

In the instant appeal,1 however, the State2 asks us to consider sex offenders' "federal obligations" and whether a circuit court has the authority to direct the State to remove sex offender registration information in light of the provisions of SORNA specifically directing sex offenders to register in the state in which they reside, work, or attend school. We shall hold that, notwithstanding the registration obligations placed directly on individuals by SORNA, circuit courts have the authority to direct the State to remove sex offender registration information from Maryland's sex offender registry when the inclusion of such information is unconstitutional as articulated in Doe I.


3-4-2013 Maryland:
Doe I v DPSCS
No. 125, September Term, 2011.

The Maryland sex offender registration statute, Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2012 Cum. Supp.), § 11-701 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Article (hereinafter a ll section references to the Criminal Proced ure Article of the Maryland Code are identified as “C.P. §”), requires persons convicted of certain sex offenses to register1 with “the person’s supervising authority.”2

We are asked to determine whether, under this statute, the State can legally require Petitioner to register.

Petitioner argues that requiring him to register as a sex offender:
  • (1) violates Petitioner’s right to be free from ex post facto laws purs uant to both the federal Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and to be free from ex post facto restrictions pursuant to theMaryland Declaration of Rights;
  • (2) violates Petitioner’s due process rights pursuant to both the federal Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and
  • (3) violates the plea agreement entered into when he pled gu ilty to the underlying crime.

... ... ...

When Petitioner committed his sex crime during the 1983-84 school year he did not face registration under the statute as a consequence for his crime. Registration was imposed, over twenty years later in 2009, under the sex offender registration statute as a direct consequence of Petitioner’s commission and conviction for his sex crime.

The application of the statute has essentially the same effect upon Petitioner’s life as placing him on probation and imposing the punishment of shaming for life, and is, thus, tantamount to imposing an additional sanction for Petitioner’s crime.

Therefore, we conclude that the imposition of the registration requirement up on Petitioner, as the result of amendments passed 25 years a fter Petitioner’s crime, to a statute passed over a decade after Petitioner’s commission of a crime is in violation of the ex post facto prohibition contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.





Doe v DPSCS copy from state.

Lower court case being appealed: MD Special Court of Appeals

No comments: