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.

Luster v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections

11-21-2013 Oklahoma:

Luster v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. (We will remove this when the final decision is posted)

Plaintiff/Appellee, Christopher Luster, a sex offender, filed a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, and Declaratory Relief to enjoin the Defendant/Appellant, The State of Oklahoma ex rel., Department of Corrections, from enforcing the Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S., § 581 et seq., against him.

The trial court consolidated this case with those of other plaintiffs filing similar actions and granted a permanent injunction to all the consolidated plaintiffs.

We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

... ... ...

Conclusion:

We therefore affirm the trial court's Order which held legislative enactments or amendments to SORA cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiffs.

We reverse the trial court's application of a blanket one-year registration frequency to all consolidated plaintiffs who were not immediately removed from the registry.

We remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of the correct registration provisions for each of the consolidated plaintiffs in light of our holdings in Starkey and Cerniglia, supra. The record herein is silent as to the individual consolidated plaintiffs' factual circumstances, with the exception of Luster.

Therefore, we cannot make a determination as to which specific provisions of SORA would apply to each individual consolidated plaintiff.

On remand the trial court is directed to review the individual consolidated plaintiffs' cases in order to determine the applicable versions of SORA for each of the plaintiffs consistent with our holdings.

No comments: