Simon Angel Rivera

1-26-2005 Texas:

In 1992, Simon Angel Rivera was convicted as a juvenile of sexually assaulting a child when he was a 14 years old. On September 15, 2002, Rivera, 24, was arrested in Austin, Texas on charges of failing to register as a sex offender. On December 16, 2002, Rivera pleaded guilty in Travis County Criminal District Court and was sentenced to two years in prison.

After he was released on February 20, 2004, he filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside his conviction, contending that his attorney had provided inadequate legal defense.

Rivera argued that his lawyer had advised him to plead guilty based on an incorrect understanding of the facts and law applicable to his case. Rivera claimed that at the time when he was charged with failing to register as a sex offender he was no longer required to do so because his juvenile status at the time of his conviction. The law did not require defendants convicted as juveniles to register after the age of 21.

After a hearing in the trial court, the prosecution agreed that Rivera was correct and recommended the writ be granted, and it was.

On January 26, 2005, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the granting of the writ and vacated Rivera’s conviction. The charges were dismissed by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office on March 11, 2005.

In September 2007, the state of Texas awarded Rivera $40,000 in compensation for his wrongful imprisonment. ..Source.. by Maurice Possley

Glen Nobles

2-27-2015 Texas:

On March 8, 2013, 52-year-old Glen Nobles was accused of failing to register as a sex offender based on a 1989 conviction for attempted sexual assault. On the advice of his defense attorney, Nobles pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In 1989, Nobles had been convicted of attempted sexual assault and sentenced to probation. In 1995, he was found to have violated that probation and was sent to prison for four years. He was released but soon sent back to prison on another probation violation. Ultimately, he was released on November 24, 2001.

While in prison after pleading guilty in 2013, Nobles began investigating the sex offender registry laws in Texas and learned that the obligation to register lasts for 10 years and that in view of his history of probation violations and imprisonments, his obligation to register expired in November 2011—15 months before he was accused of failing to register as a sex offender.

In April 2014, Nobles filed a state-court petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to vacate his guilty plea. The Sabine County District Attorney’s Office investigated and agreed that in March 2013, when was he was charged with failing to register, Nobles was no longer required to do so.

The prosecution joined with Nobles’ defense attorney in requesting that the conviction be vacated. After the trial court recommended the conviction be set aside, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on January 14, 2015, vacated Nobles’ conviction saying that “the period during which (Nobles) was required to register as a sex-offender expired on November 24, 2011. (Nobles) was no longer required to register as a sex offender after this date.”

On February 27, 2015, a Sabine County Criminal District Judge signed an order presented by the prosecution dismissing the charge. ..Source.. by Maurice Possley

Bartlett v Alameida

5-10-2004 California:

Bartlett v Alameida
366 F.3d 1020 (2004)

William Louis Bartlett is a state prisoner serving a 25-year-to-life sentence for failing to re-register as a sex offender pursuant to California's sex offender registration statute, Cal. Pen.Code § 290(a)(1)(A). He contends, in his quest for a writ of habeas corpus, that his conviction violates due process because the state was not required to prove that he had knowledge of the lifelong duty to register. The district court denied Bartlett's petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and remand.

... ... ...

IV.
Lambert required the state to prove that Bartlett knew or probably knew of his lifelong duty to register as a sex offender. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury that actual knowledge was not an element of the crime. Because this error was not harmless, and because the state court of appeal unreasonably determined that no Lambert error occurred, the district court erred by not granting Bartlett's petition for writ of habeas corpus. We reverse that decision and remand to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus unless the state grants Bartlett a new trial within sixty days of the issuance of this Court's mandate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.