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
Forced to Carry Gov't Message Issue: See HERE
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.

People v Douglas M

10-24-2013 California:

People v Douglas M

Douglas M. appeals from an order modifying his probation, pursuant to amended Penal Code section 1203.067,1 which sets forth various new probation conditions for registered sex offenders.2 Because the presumption of prospectivity of Penal Code statutes, mandated by section 3, cannot be rebutted, we conclude that the provisions of revised section 1203.067 may not be applied retroactively to change the terms and conditions of probation for probationers who committed their offenses before the effective date of the amendment. As appellant‟s offenses occurred well before that date, the trial court improperly modified the terms and conditions of his probation to include the new provisions.

... ... ...

In sum, there is nothing in either the language of the statute or its legislative history clearly indicating a legislative intent for revised section 1203.067 to be applied retroactively to probationers whose crimes occurred before its effective date. (See Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 319-320; Alford, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 754.) Moreover, to construe the statute as applying to those probationers would raise serious constitutional questions under the federal and state ex post facto clauses. Therefore, in keeping with the mandate of section 3, the amended statute must be viewed as “unambiguously prospective,” applying to probationers who committed their crimes on or after the statute‟s effective date of September 9, 2010. (See Brown, at p. 320.) Because appellant‟s offense occurred before September 9, 2010, the provisions of revised section 1203.067 were improperly applied to him and must be stricken.6


The judgment is modified to strike the new terms and conditions of probation imposed on appellant pursuant to amended section 1203.067. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Additional Counseling Not Required For Some Registrants


The California Supreme Court has denied review of a case thereby relieving some registered citizens from the duty to participate in a state-mandated sex offender management program. Specifically, as a result of the Supreme Court’s denial, registered citizens currently on probation whose sex offense occurred prior to September 10, 2010, are not required to complete a sex offender management program mandated by Penal Code Section 1203.067(b).

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case People v. Douglas M. which was decided on October 24, 2013. The case was appealed shortly thereafter.

“This is an important decision for registrants whose offenses occurred prior to September 10, 2010,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “No longer will they be required to participate in an expensive and intrusive program.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was issued on January 21, 2014. ..Source.. by CA-RSOL

No comments: