Corey Eason

10-25-2005 Illinois:

When 23-year-old Corey Eason, a small-time central Illinois drug dealer, was paroled from prison for a cocaine dealing conviction in 2002, he was mistakenly classified as a sex offender even though he had never been accused, arrested or convicted of any sex-related offense. As a result, Eason (who was unaware of this error) was listed on Illinois’ sex offender registry, and had his picture posted on the Internet.

Three years later, in March 2005, when Eason was arrested in Bloomington and charged with assault and possession of a controlled substance, his name was found on the sex offender registry. As a result, he was charged with three counts of failing to report a change of address as required by the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act, and convicted at a bench trial.

In September 2005, at the request of Eason’s attorney, the McLean County Probation Department contacted the Illinois State Police, who maintain the sex offender website, and they looked into Eason’s case. They could not explain why Eason was prosecuted since it was evident from his criminal record, which was available to both prosecutors and defense counsel, that he had never been convicted of a sex offense.

The McLean County prosecutors were also notified of the mistake, and, at a hearing on October 25, 2005, they acknowledged the error. McLean County Circuit Court Judge Ronald Dozier vacated the convictions, saying, “I’m glad we got this straightened out before it got too much further down the line.” Eason received probation on the assault and drug possession charges for which he had been arrested in March, 2005.

Eason’s plan to pursue a civil suit over his ordeal never materialized. In April 2011, he was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. ..Source.. by Center on Wrongful Convictions

USA -v- Collins

12-9-2014 West Virginia:

USA -v- Collins

Dwaine Allen Collins was convicted of knowingly failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The district court sentenced Collins to 30 months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. On this direct appeal, Collins contests his conviction primarily on the grounds that the government failed to prove an essential element of a SORNA violation: that he knew he had an obligation to register.

In support, he points to comments made by a state court judge in a separate proceeding, which in Collins’s view suggest that his obligation to register had expired. We agree with the district court, however, that the state judge appeared to be giving advice rather than a binding legal opinion. Moreover, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that Collins knowingly avoided an obligation to register as a sex offender. We thus find Collins’s claim unpersuasive and affirm his conviction.

Collins also appeals his sentence. We find his 30-month term of imprisonment, which is within the applicable Guidelines range, to be reasonable and thus affirm the district court’s sentence in that respect. As to the term of supervised release, however, the United States Sentencing Commission recently issued a clarifying amendment stating that a failure to register under SORNA is not a “sex offense” for the purposes of the Guidelines. Consequently, we vacate the supervised release portion of Collins’s sentence and remand for further proceedings.

... ... ... ...

For the reasons provided above, we affirm Collins’s conviction and his term of imprisonment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to his term of supervised release.

People v Lee

6-30-2011 Michigan:

People v Lee (Flicking a penis, as a disciplinary measure, is not a sex crime. Weird case.)

In this case, we hold that the trial court erred when it required defendant to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) 20 months after defendant had been sentenced.1 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the trial court’s decision to require defendant to register under SORA.

On August 6, 2005, defendant and his wife agreed to babysit their neighbors’ two boys. Defendant prepared the children for bedtime by bathing them. Defendant’s son and the older neighbor boy went to another room after getting dressed for bed. The younger neighbor boy, three-year-old JW, was uncooperative as defendant attempted to diaper and dress him. According to defendant, he used his finger to flick JW’s penis in an effort to get his attention. Defendant flicked JW’s penis twice because JW did not respond to the first flick. JW cried after the second flick.

Under MCL 769.1(13) and MCL 28.724(5), a trial court must, before imposing a sentence, satisfy multiple requirements in order to properly require a defendant to register as a sex offender. Because the trial court in this case failed to satisfy those statutory requirements, its subsequent decision at a postsentencing hearing held 20 months after the sentence was entered to require registration was erroneous. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to bring a motion to correct the arguably invalid sentence within the time limit provided in MCR 6.429(B)(3).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate the trial court’s order requiring defendant to register under SORA.