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.

Goodman v State

6-10-2013 Florida:

Goodman v State

At issue is whether Bay County Sheriff Office’s policy of requiring registered sexual offenders, who are perpetually itinerant within the county, to report in person to its main office by 10 a.m. each Monday morning to specify where they intend to spend the next seven nights is consistent with the applicable sexual offender statute, section 943.0435(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2010).

John Luther Goodman III, a registered sex offender, claims the policy goes beyond what the statute required of him, and that his felony conviction for failing to comply with the policy is flawed. He challenges the policy and the special jury instruction that was given.

We disagree and affirm.



Something in this decision is absolutely absurd:
" ... ... ... In theory, an itinerant offender could have seventy-three (365/5) permanent, temporary or transient residences in a calendar year or 365 itinerant ones (a possibility, given the Sheriff’s Office’s position at trial that a change of even five feet in the woods is a reportable change in location). Other patterns and permutations of permanent, temporary, transient and itinerant residencies are possible."

That comment alone should have invalidated the statute. No other registrant is held to such a restriction and neither should this type of registrant.

No comments: