Court Expands Eligibility for Certificates of Rehabilitation

11-13-2015 California:

A California Court of Appeal issued a decision this week that expands eligibility for registrants to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. The decision, People v. Tirey, states that a registrant who was convicted of PC 288(a) and who completed parole 13 years ago is eligible to apply for a certificate.

“This is an important decision for many registrants,” stated attorney and CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein. “It will significantly expand the number of registrants who can apply for a certificate of rehabilitation.”

In this case, the appellate court clarified that it was not making a decision whether Tirey would obtain a certificate. Instead, that decision is to be made by a trial court.

According to the Court, equal protection principles were violated when Tirey was declared ineligible to apply for a certificate. These principles have the possibility of being applied to convictions for similar sex offenses such as PC 288 and 288.5.

In its decision, the Court rejected all arguments offered by the Attorney General who had requested a rehearing of the original case.

“A certificate of rehabilitation currently is the only realistic method for registered citizens to be removed from the sex offender registry,” stated Oberstein.

The decision to grant a certificate of rehabilitation is a discretionary decision by a state judge who faces re-election. In order to maximize the possibility of obtaining a certificate, registrants must provide the court with a psychological evaluation as well as letters of support.

Judge Thompson disagreed with the court’s ruling and in his dissent stated that the court’s decision “will allow thousands of serious sex offenders to escape their lifetime parole and sex offender registration obligations.” ..Source.. by CA-RSOL

---

See Also THESE in State News Blog...

See Also THESE in National News Blog...

---

People v. Gerber

6-8-2011 California:

People v. Gerber
196 Cal.App.4th 368 (2011)

Defendant Joseph Lowell Gerber appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a))1 (count one), annoying or molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a)) (count two), furnishing marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a)) (count three), and two counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353) (counts four and five).

On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of possession of child pornography (§ 311.11) and raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and instructional error. In addition, he asserts that the trial court lacked authority to make its no-contact order.

We hold that the phrase "the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct ..." in section 311.11 requires a real child to have actually engaged in or simulated the [196 Cal.App.4th 372] sexual conduct depicted.

We reverse the conviction of possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11 based on the insufficiency of the evidence (count one) and we reverse the convictions of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11353 (counts four and five) based on instructional error.

We also strike the no-contact order.

... ... ...

E. No-contact Order

At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to have no contact with the victim or her family. Defendant argues that the order is invalid because it was not authorized by section 1202.05 or any other statute. Defendant was not convicted of any of the sex offenses enumerated by section 1202.05, which presently authorizes courts to prohibit visitation between a defendant sentenced to state prison and the child victim. The People concede error and ask this court to strike the order. We agree this is the appropriate remedy.

California transplant wins appeal in sex registry case

3-10-2012 New Mexico:

SANTA FE — Does a convicted sex offender in California have to register with the government if he moves to New Mexico?

The New Mexico Court of Appeals said one such man did not, setting the stage for another courtroom confrontation this month.

Bruce D. Hall, about to turn 65 years old, is the defendant in the middle of this storm over laws and protection of children. Hall is a marked man as a sex offender in California but, so far, not in New Mexico.

Court records show that Hall in 1999 was convicted in California of "annoying or molesting children," a misdemeanor. An assistant attorney general in New Mexico stated in a brief that Hall touched the genitals of three young boys.

Hall moved to Las Cruces, but did not register as a sex offender. This led to his indictment in 2008 for violating New Mexico's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Hall said that, despite his criminal record, he was not obligated to register as a sex offender. What he did in California was not a sex offense in New Mexico, he argued.

He said he could not be subjected to the registration law and asked that the charge against him be dismissed.

District Judge Douglas Driggers of Doña Ana County rejected Hall's motion. Hall entered a conditional guilty plea, but preserved his right to appeal.

Prepping to pee in park wasn’t perverted, jury says

11-22-2013 California:

Pinching a homeless guy for pointing Percy at the park instead of the porcelain was ultimately pointless because it wasn’t perverted, a San Francisco Superior Court jury said this week.

The homeless defendant, Miguel Hernandez, was accused of flashing a mother and her 4-year-old child on August 11 when he pulled out his penis to, by his account, pee at Franklin Square Park on Bryant and 16th streets. The 29-year-old woman said she thought the 38-year-old Hernandez had an erection when he swung his male equipment within her view — but Hernandez told the jury he only turned because he heard an eruption of noise from a nearby soccer game and wanted to see who scored.

Hernandez — who wound up on the streets recently when he lost his job as a wine buyer — told investigators he thought everyone nearby was too absorbed in the game to notice what he was doing. He then took off his shoes and sat down to also watch the game, his defense attorney said. That’s where police officers who’d been summoned by the outraged mother arrested him.

Longino Acero

March 2006 California:

In July 1978, Longino Acero entered a no contest plea to a charge of lewd conduct with an adult woman, which did not require registration as a sex offender.

But because of a clerical error, Acero’s conviction was recorded as child molestation, a crime that did require registration.

From 1994 until 2004, Acero was arrested three separate times and sentenced to prison terms ranging from four months to more than two years, each time on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender. He was publicly listed as a high-risk sex offender.

Although on each occasion Acero told his attorneys that he had never committed a crime against a minor, the attorneys failed to check the court file, and repeatedly advised him to plead guilty.

In September 2005, Acero received a letter from the San Jose Police Department informing him that his original misdemeanor conviction had been recorded incorrectly and he should never have been required to register as a sex offender.

After retaining a new attorney, Acero petitioned the Santa Clara County Superior Court to overturn his convictions for failure to register.

The court granted his petition in March 2006, his guilty pleas were withdrawn, and the charges were dismissed. Acero filed a claim for compensation from the state of California, but it was denied. ..Source.. by Maurice Possley

People v Rebulloza

3-2-15 California:

People v Rebulloza

Defendant Juan Jose Rebulloza pleaded no contest to one count of indecent exposure for exposing himself on a street corner in San José. The trial court granted a three-year term of probation to include one year in county jail as a condition of probation.

Among other conditions, the court ordered defendant to complete a sex offender management program as mandated by Penal Code section 1203.067. Under subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(4) of that statute, the court ordered defendant to “waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations which shall be part of the sex offender management program” and “waive any psychotherapist/patient privilege to enable communication between the sex offender management professional and the probation officer.”

Defendant challenges the constitutionality of these two waivers.1

First, we hold that the condition requiring a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment under Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420 (Murphy).

Second, we construe the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege as requiring waiver only insofar as necessary to enable communication between the probation officer and the psychotherapist.

We hold that the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege as construed in this fashion is not overbroad in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to privacy.

...

CA Supreme Court Decision Regarding Residency Restrictions Due March 2

3-2-15 Decision: In re Taylor. This may leave open several questions if it is ONLY applicable to San Diego county. Lawyers speak up..

2-27-2015 California:

The California Supreme Court has officially announced (2-27) that it will publish on Monday, March 2, two decisions regarding residency restrictions. The decisions are expected to determine the following issues:

• (1) whether residency restrictions are constitutional
• (2) to whom do the restrictions apply and
• (3) if the restrictions can be applied to every registered citizen while on parole.

The Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 2 in Los Angeles.

During oral arguments in the case of People v. Mosley, the Attorney General’s office argued that residency restrictions are constitutional but that they only apply to registered citizens while on parole (not to those on probation or who have completed parole).

The attorney representing Mosley argued in the alternative that the restrictions are not constitutional but if they are, they apply to all registered citizens.

During oral arguments in the case of In re Taylor, the Public Defender argued that residency restrictions cannot be applied to every registered citizen while on parole, but must be done on a case-by-case basis. ..Source.. by CA RSOL

California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

Doe, Roe, CA-RSOL -v- Harris

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic see also

Convicted sex offenders, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the First Amendment

11-20-2014 California:

Beginning in the 1930s, shortly after the Supreme Court had “incorporated” the First Amendment into the due process clause (thereby making it an enforceable constraint not only on the federal government ["Congress shall make no law . . ."] but on State and municipal governments as well) the Jehovah’s Witnesses went on a campaign to attack, in court, restrictions on their ability to proselytize door-to-door and to give voice to unpopular views. During one particular 8 year period (1938 to 1946) they brought no fewer than 23 separate First Amendment actions to the Supreme Court (prompting Justice Stone to quip that they “ought to have an endowment in view of the aid they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties”). They won some spectacularly important victories – West Virginia Board of Ed. v Barnette (1943) (children cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag), Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (19420 (establishing the “fighting words” doctrine, and overturning conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness who called a local official a “damned racketeer” and a “fascist”), Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) (overturning municipal ordinance requiring government permits for all door-to-door advocacy).***

California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic

Sex offender seeks $215K for time served in Calif. prisons

5-10-2014 Rhode Island, California:

SACRAMENTO - A state hearing officer is recommending a convicted sex offender be paid $215,200 for the nearly seven years he spent in California prisons for failing to register after he moved from his native Rhode Island.

Charles Herbert Holmes, 50, doesn't deny sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl in Providence in 1991, but claims the Rhode Island conviction for second-degree child molestation did not require him to register as a sex offender when he moved to California.

Holmes has a criminal history dating back to 1982, including convictions for burglary, fraud, counterfeiting, drug possession and resisting arrest.

He served three years of a ten-year sentence for the sexual assault on the child.

In 2005, Holmes was a transient in San Diego County coming off a four-year prison stretch for burglary when he was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. Facing 25 years to life in prison as a two-striker, Holmes pleaded guilty to the registration charge and received a sentence of nine years.

California's High court rejects appeal on sex-offender rules

4-23-2014 California:

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review a lower court's ruling striking down sex-offender restrictions in Orange County that were among the strictest in the state.

Lower court ruling was People v Godinez which the DA appealed but the high court has refused the appeal leaving Godinez controlling the issue.

The move means that local bans in dozens of California communities are trumped by state law, as the 4th District Court of Appeal found in January.

"We're obviously disappointed," Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County's district attorney, told City News Service. "We put our heart and soul in every brief and every argument to protect the children of Orange County from dangerous sex offenders. ... We still believe it was the right thing to do."

Orange County's restrictions passed in 2011 barred offenders from parks and beaches unless they had written permission from the sheriff.

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

DISPOSITION

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

3-19-2014:

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

Lawyer loses bid to end sex offender status

In 2013 People v Tirey the court declared it was unconstitutional to deny these Certs to qualified applicants, ruling prior law --mentioned below-- unconstitutional.

7-27-2011 California:

People v Oberstein

Appellate court affirms OC judge’s rejection of attempt by former L.A. public defender to clear name.

SANTA ANA – A panel of appellate justices has sided with an Orange County judge in denying a former Los Angeles public defender's bid to stop registering as a sex offender.

The panel ruled, however, that the judge erred in forcing Chance Xcaliber Oberstein to wait another two years to seek a so-called certificate of rehabilitation, which if acquired would free him from having to register as a sex offender.

Oberstein was convicted in 1998 of having unlawful sex with a 16-year-old girl he met while working for the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office. The girl was a client of the office, but not represented by Oberstein.

The sexual contact occurred in 1996, when Oberstein was 38. The convictions - for unlawful sexual intercourse, sodomy and oral copulation – yielded a one-year jail sentence and probation, prompting Oberstein to resign from the state bar.

In June 2001, Los Angeles Superior Court granted early termination of probation and, in September 2003, Oberstein's convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. In June of 2004, his guilty verdict was set aside and, in 2008, the state bar reinstated him as an attorney.

A certificate of rehabilitation is a court-issued recommendation to the governor to pardon a convicted felon and release the petitioner from certain requirements stemming from the conviction. The standard for receiving a certificate of rehabilitation is high.

Fourth District Court of Appeal Tosses City’s Sex Offender Ordinance

2-20-2014: District Attorney Wants Top Court to Review Rulings Overturning Ban on Sex Offenders in Parks

1-14-2014: District Attorney will take sex-offenders fight to state Supreme Court

1-14-2014 California:

People v. Nguyen

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that state law occupies the field of sex offender restrictions, preempting a city ordinance where the restriction was considered a registration requirement and restriction on daily life.

Div. Three, in an opinion by Richard M. Aronson, affirmed the dismissal of a misdemeanor complaint against JeanPierre Cuong Nguyen. He was charged with violating Irvine Municipal Code §4-14-803, requiring that sex offenders obtain written permission from the city’s police chief before entering a city park and recreational facility.

In determining the relevant field for ascertaining whether state law preempted the ordinance, the court concluded that the state has preempted the field of restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life, not just the geographical restrictions of where a sex offender may travel.

The Legislature, Aronson said, “has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders to reduce the risk of an offender committing a new offense…[the statutory scheme] occupies the field and therefore preempts the city’s efforts to restrict sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities.”

The requirement of written permission, the court held, was a de facto registration mandate. Such a requirement is preempted by state law, especially where the state has long occupied the area of sex offender registration, since 1947, Aronson said.

The district attorney argued that the whole ordinance need not be invalidated because the written permission requirement could be severed from the rest of the city ordinance. The court disagreed, saying that striking the written permission portion from the ordinance would result in an outright ban on sex offenders’ ability to enter parks or recreational facilities, which was not part of the Legislature’s intent.

Aronson said:

“An invalid portion of an ordinance is volitionally separable if the remainder of the ordinance reflects a substantial portion of the legislatives body’s purpose in passing the ordinance. Here, allowing the remainder of Section 4-14-803 to stand as an outright ban on sex offenders entering a city park or recreational facility would go beyond Irvine’s intent.”

A court has does not have the power, Aronson concluded, to sever a portion of a city ordinance where to do so would result in rewriting the ordinance to conform to a presumed intention, substantially altering the meaning of the ordinance as originally enacted. ..Source.. by MICHAEL J. PEIL Staff Writer

---

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994

2013 Outcome Evaluation Report. January 2014.

Homelessness Among California's Registered Sex Offenders - August 2011

State appeals court finds California law trumps Orange County's strict sex offender measures

2-20-2014: District Attorney Wants Top Court to Review Rulings Overturning Ban on Sex Offenders in Parks

1-14-2014: District Attorney will take sex-offenders fight to state Supreme Court

1-11-2014 California:

People v Godinez and HERE

LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court ruled Friday that state law trumps Orange County regulations banning sex offenders from parks and beaches, dealing a serious setback to some of the strictest sex-offender rules in the state.

The decision comes after a county court in 2012 overturned the conviction of a sex offender for going to a park and asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to rule on the case and the legality of the regulations, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Sheriff's Department had already stopped enforcing the law in response.

The registered sex offender, Hugo Godinez, was convicted of a misdemeanor for going to a company picnic at a Fountain Valley park in 2012. He had been convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery two years earlier to earn the sex offender status.

Orange County's restrictions passed in 2011 barred offenders from parks and beaches unless they got written permission from the sheriff.

The appeals judges on Friday found that the rule amounted to a "de facto registration requirement" and conflicts with laws passed by the state which already provide a "comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders."

A phone message left with the district attorney's office after business hours by The Associated Press was not immediately returned, but the DA's Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder told City News Service the county may appeal further.

"We're going to review our options requesting the Supreme Court of California to review this case," Schroeder said. "We believe in this war in protecting children against sex offenders that the state never intended to pre-empt every law keeping sex offenders out of parks."

On the urging of the district attorney, several cities passed similar measures, the Times reported. Many of them were also facing legal challenges and one, Lake Forest, has already repealed its rules. ..Source.. by Daily Journal

---

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994

2013 Outcome Evaluation Report. January 2014.

Homelessness Among California's Registered Sex Offenders - August 2011

He's Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says

12-24-2013 California:

A man required to register as a sex offender for life for having consensual relations with his now-wife 24 years ago - when he was 19 and she was 17 - asked a state court to remove that obligation so he can get on with his life.

In 1989, police busted Lonny Leon Rivera, then 19, for having "consensual, voluntary relations" with his 17-year-old girlfriend. He pleaded guilty to a single count of oral copulation with a minor. That charge requires mandatory, lifetime registration as a sex offender in the state of California, according to Rivera's lawsuit in Tulare County Court.

Rivera and his girlfriend remained together and are now married.

Rivera registered, but acknowledges that he failed to update his information annually from 1991 through 2011. In 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a criminal complaint for failure to register as a sex offender. Rivera was arraigned in October.

In his petition for writ of mandate, Rivera claims that the state's demand is unconstitutional.

"Rivera's inclusion in the sex offender registry under the mandatory provisions of the California Sex Offender Registration Act violates his right to equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution," Rivera says in the petition, citing a 2006 ruling by the California Supreme Court in People v. Hofsheier.

US v DeJarnette Jr

11-18-2013 California:

US v Alexander DeJarnette, Jr.

Summary

The panel reversed a judgment of conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal.

The panel held that the Attorney General has not yet “validly specifie[d]” that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a)’s requirement of registration in the jurisdiction of the sex-offense conviction (if different from the jurisdiction of residence) applies to pre-Act offenders like the defendant who were, at the time of SORNA’s enactment and implementation, already subject to sex offender registration obligations.

The panel concluded that the district court’s jury instruction erroneously permitting the jury to convict solely on the basis of the defendant’s failure to register in the jurisdiction of his sex-offense conviction was not harmless.

Dissenting, Judge Graber wrote that the Attorney General’s regulations validly specify that SORNA’s registration requirements apply to all sex offenders, including pre-SORNA offenders; that the defendant was notified of his initial registration requirement in the jurisdiction of his sexoffense conviction; and that the jury was properly instructed.

Note: This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

---

Alexander DeJarnette is a federal sex offender who failed to register as such and was convicted of violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901 et seq., 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (2006)).

On appeal, he challenges the district court’s interpretation of SORNA as imposing upon him an obligation to register in the jurisdiction of his sex-offense conviction, the Northern District of California, even though the evidence shows that he resided in a different jurisdiction (the State of Georgia) throughout the period charged in his indictment.

He contends that, because he had no legal duty to register in the Northern District of California, the district court’s contrary jury instruction was erroneous as a matter of law, venue was improper in the Northern District of California, and his nonregistration conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, for the following reasons, we reverse the conviction.

---

eAdvocate FYI Note: A little known AWA requirement which I've never seen enforced after-the-fact, until the decision above, is:

42 USC 16913

a) In general
A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. For initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is different from the jurisdiction of residence.

25 to life for failing to reregister as sex offender

12-18-2013 California:

Vance Rider was a 41-year-old man with a long criminal record and a low IQ when he left Oakland in late 1999 and bedded down at a homeless shelter in San Mateo. Police found him there in March 2000 and discovered he had failed to reregister as a sex offender as required by law — once a year, within five days of his birthday, and within five days of a change of address.

After a San Mateo County judge barred a psychologist from testifying about Rider’s low mental capacity, a jury convicted him of violating the registration law. With multiple felony convictions on his record — three robberies in 1978, and forcible oral copulation of a minor and attempted manslaughter in 1983 –he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under California’s three-strikes law.

Rider has remained in prison during lengthy and unsuccessful appeals in the state courts, and on Wednesday he lost again, this time in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

One defense argument was that the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear a psychologist who said Rider had an IQ of 69 and that such people have difficulty with their memory and ability to make plans. The judge said the defense could offer evidence that Rider was unaware of his duty to register, or lacked the ability to comply, but that state law barred testimony that he suffered from a mental defect that affected his capacity to follow the law.

Sierra Madre Stops Enforcement of Sex Offender Ordinance

12-15-2013 California:

The City of Sierra Madre has agreed to stop enforcement of its sex offender ordinance, which prohibited all registered sex offenders, from residing in most of the city and from being present in child safety zones that included the city’s schools, parks and public library. The Sierra Madre City Council approved this action on December 10 after being sued in federal district court by one of the city’s four registered citizens. The legal challenge was based upon allegations that the city ordinance violated the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a significant victory for all registered citizens within the state of California,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci, who represented the registered citizen. “It restores the civil rights of registered citizens who live within the City of Sierra Madre as well as those who wish to visit that city.”

According to terms of the settlement agreement, the ultimate fate of the city ordinance will depend upon a future ruling by the California Supreme Court in the case In re Taylor, That case is expected to decide whether residency restrictions are constitutional and, if so, if their application is limited to registered citizens on parole. The Supreme Court granted review of this case in December 2012.

“This settlement agreement is a good model for other cities, who have enacted residency restrictions, to follow,” stated Bellucci. “It protects such cities from future lawsuits until the state Supreme Court decides this important matter.”

In addition to stopping enforcement of its ordinance, the City of Sierra Madre agreed to pay attorneys fees and costs in exchange for a dismissal of the case. ..Source.. by CARSOL blog