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.
Showing posts with label .Colorado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label .Colorado. Show all posts

Colorado SOMB Approved Standards Revisions Sexual Offense History Questions


8-19-16 Colorado:

Source Colorado SOMB Announcement:

Greetings,

On August 19, 2016, the SOMB approved revisions to the Standards and Guidelines as they pertain to sexual offense history questions, including sexual offense history polygraph questions. These revisions apply to Standards and Guidelines for adult sex offenders and juveniles who have committed sexual offenses.

All current Standards and Guidelines related to requirements for sexual offense history questions, including sexual offense history polygraph questions, are unchanged. The following revisions apply only when an adult sex offender or a juvenile who has committed a sexual offense refuses to answer such questions.

Below you will find three recent court decisions that support a client's right to refuse to answer sexual offense history questions, including sexual offense history polygraph questions. These decisions have necessitated the revised language to the Standards and Guidelines as follows:
"If the offender refuses to answer sexual offense history questions, including sexual offense history polygraph questions, then the provider shall meet with the supervising officer to identify and implement alternative methods of assessing and managing risk and needs. The provider shall not unsuccessfully discharge an offender from treatment for solely refusing to answer sexual offense history questions, including sexual offense history polygraph questions."
The revisions are implemented, where applicable, throughout the Standards and Guidelines for adult sex offenders as well as for juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. You are encouraged to review the attached documents carefully. You are welcome to submit proposed changes to be considered as the revision process moves forward. In addition, as questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you.



People vs. Robertson
People vs. Ruch
US vs. VonBehren


USA v Cheever

7-18-2016 Colorado:

USA v Cheever

JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before me for sentencing on Defendant Shawn Cheever's plea to a single count of possession of child pornography. I have heard the presentations of counsel, and Mr. Cheever has been afforded his right of allocution. Because the question of a condign sentence in this case, and in cases involving plea deals negotiated in rigid adherence to non-binding Sentencing Guidelines generally, raises sentencing issues about which I have thought long and hard, I take time to address them in the following written opinion.

... ... ...

Conclusion.

It is argued at various places in the vast literature on this subject I have reviewed that the value of the plethysmograph is not to condemn or to judge, but rather to facilitate the evaluation and therapy undertaken by nudging the subject along to admit his defect of character — a sort of plaintive admonition that confession is good for the soul and overcomes the resistance to therapy that is manifested in denial. Such admission is regarded as one of the first steps toward a rehabilitative state of refrain and abstinence. Perhaps it should be considered a shortcut in therapy. (One can only surmise that a relapse after treatment would exacerbate the perversion because it occurs in spite of the therapy generated by the conscious admission.)

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in United States v. McLaurin, 731 F.3d 258, 260 (2013) that a condition of defendant's supervised release that required him to take penile plethysmograph testing was an "extraordinary invasive condition [that is] unjustified, is not reasonable related to the statutory goals of sentencing, and violates McLaurin's right to substantive due process."

The special condition requiring Cheever to submit to plethysmograph testing is specifically rejected. So, too, until such time as I am presented by the government with proof that the polygraph and the visual reaction time measurement device will meet the goals of supervised release as applied to a particular defendant, that such testing will involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary for the particularized supervised release of an individual defendant and that there are no alternative measures, techniques or devices available that are any less intrusive to freedom of thought, they, too, are rejected.

ALERT: Is a Failure to Register charge a sex offense?

5-5-2012 Colorado:

Life never ceases to amaze me. Something I had heard about some time ago, I now have proof that this is true!

Only in Colorado, to my knowledge today, is a charge of "Failure to Register" considered a sex offense. Right a sex offense, don't believe me, click on the following pic and read the yellow portion.
This is page-11 of Laws Governing Sex Offenders in Colorado (11-2008), a file that describes all sex offenses and offender rules in Colorado.

Think of the ramifications of this, its mind boggling. There has to be someone with a sick sense of humor that pushed this through the legislature. I'm just blown away by this, are you?

If this is also true in other states, I'd love to know which ones. This will mess up recidivism figures BIG TIME!

Hurley acquitted on two felony charges

8-1-2014 Colorado:

A Jefferson County jury found Gerald Hurley, a convicted sex offender, not guilty of two felony counts for failing to register as a sex offender with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office on Friday, July 11.

Hurley’s release from prison last year prompted a community meeting notification after his decision to live in Golden. After his acquittal on Friday, Hurley was released and given five days to register as a sexually violent predator in his established residence.

It is unknown where Hurley will be living at this time but it seems he many be leaving the state once again, according to the Jeffco Sheriff's Office.

Jeffco District Attorney Pete Weir stated that although he is disappointed in the verdict, he respects the jury’s decision. “It’s a very complicated statue,” Weir said. “It can be complicated factually.”

Detective Stacy Galbraith of the Golden Police Department was the state’s sole witness during Hurley’s preliminary hearing back in February. Galbraith testified to the investigation leading to Hurley’s arrest warrant dated Oct. 3, 2013 in which Hurley failed to register as a sex offender with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s department after obtaining a fixed address in unincorporated Jeffco with a Golden mailing address, according to an affidavit. Galbraith was able to confirm Hurley’s alleged established residence after discovering he renewed his driver’s license with the Golden mailing address.

Ryals v City of Englewood

8-21-2013 Colorado:

Ryals v City of Englewood and HERE

UPDATE 8-27-13: Englewood to appeal sexual offender decision

Update 1-25-16: CO Sup Ct Decision on Appeal Not Good

(UPDATE: 2014: Residency law reinstated with different distances. See way below)

This case was tried to the Court from July 22 to 25, 2013. Plaintiff Stephen Brett Ryals challenges the constitutionality of the City of Englewood’s Ordinance 34, which restricts where certain sex offenders—including Mr. Ryals—may reside. Mr. Ryals brings five claims under three theories, arguing that the ordinance
  • (1) is preempted by state sex offender regulations,
  • (2) retroactively and punitively changes the legal consequences of his original conviction, and
  • (3) deprives him of his liberty without due process of law.
The Court finds that the Englewood ordinance in its present form is preempted by Colorado state law.

... ... ...

Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Court directs that final judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff, Stephen Ryals, and against the defendant, the City of Englewood. As the prevailing party, the plaintiff is awarded his reasonable costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

DATED this 21th day of August, 2013.


Order on Attorney's Fees and Costs (June 2014)

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney's fees and certain costs not previously assessed. The parties have submitted several affidavits in support of their respective positions and have not requested an evidentiary hearing or oral argument. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court awards attorney's fees (to Plaintiff RSO) in the amount of $429,999.50 and additional costs in the amount of $16,618.13.

News Articles Below


Englewood’s Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Ruled Unconstitutional (Aug 2013)

DENVER – In a case brought by ACLU attorneys, a federal district court yesterday invalidated an Englewood ordinance that restricts where persons convicted of certain sex offenses can live, ruling that the ordinance violates the Colorado Constitution.

Englewood’s ordinance makes it a crime for persons convicted of certain sex offenses to live within 2000 feet of any school, park, or playground, or 1000 feet of any licensed day care center, recreation center or swimming pool, or any property located next to a bus stop, walk-to-school route, or recreational trail.

Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that the ordinance “leaves essentially no place for offenders to live” and pushes sex offenders into neighboring cities, causing an impermissible conflict with “the state interest in the uniform treatment, management, rehabilitation, and reintegration of sex offenders during and after state supervision.”

“Local ordinances that ban sex offenders from living in a particular community provide a false sense of security,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “As the State Sex Offender Management Board has noted, these ordinances don’t prevent sex offenses and they don’t increase safety. Instead, they make communities less safe by interfering with offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into safe, stable, and supportive environments. And when town after town enacts similar restrictions, it poses the risk that sex offenders are driven underground and disconnected from treatment and supervision.”

People v Brooks

3-29-2012 Colorado:

People v Brooks

Defendant, Lorenzo Brooks, appeals the judgment of conviction following a bench trial in which the court found him guilty of failure to register as a sex offender. Because we conclude defendant was not required to register as a sex offender in Colorado, we reverse the judgment of conviction.

When the two offenses are contrasted, it is clear that Colorado requires an additional element that the crime be "under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person." The Texas statute lacks this additional element.2 Thus, defendant's Texas conviction for indecency with a child by exposure did not satisfy all the elements of the crime of indecent exposure in Colorado. Consequently, the People failed to prove defendant's crime was one which, if committed in Colorado, would require defendant to register as a sex offender.

Therefore, we conclude defendant is not required to register as a sex offender because his conviction in Texas does not fall within the statutory requirements of sections 16-22-103(1)(b), 18-3-411(1), 18-3-412.5(1), and 18-7-302(1)(a).3

The judgment of conviction is reversed.



Colorado Court Overturns Failure To Register As A Sex Offender Conviction § 18-3-412.5(1), C.R.S., 16-22-103(1)(b), C.R.S. Based On Out Of State Conviction

In a recent Colorado case - People v Lorenzo Brooks - the defendant's conviction's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was overturned because his out of state Texas conviction had no Colorado sex crime equivalent. The case addresses when an out of state resident - or a resident with an out of state sex crime conviction - must register in the state of Colorado.

The Colorado court of appeals concluded that Brooks was not required to register as a sex offender in - here is the analysis. The Colorado Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the decision.

The rule in Colorado - in this complex case - which addresses Colorado's Sex Offender registration laws - and discusses whether section 16-22-103(1)(b), C.R.S. 2011, which requires an element-by-element comparison of a defendant's out-of-state conviction with that of an existing unlawful sexual offense in Colorado to make the determination of whether sex offender registration - was properly followed.

The Factual Background of The Case
In 1994, the defendant pleaded guilty in Harris County, Texas, to the crime indecency with a child by exposure, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(2) and was sentenced to ten years in the Texas Department of Corrections.

His case was then transferred to El Paso County, Colorado, where he pleaded guilty to the Colorado crime of aggravated robbery and again received a lengthy prison sentence.
After his parole in 2007 the defendant was told that he must register as a sex offender under the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act, §§ 16-22-101 to -115, C.R.S., based upon the Texas conviction. He did - for 7 quarters - but then moved without updating the sex offender registry.

He was later charged with - and convicted of two felony counts of failing to register as a sex offender.

The Analysis of Colorado's Failure to Register Law - 16-22-103(1)(b)As It Applies To Out of State Sex Crime Convictions

The Duty to Register As A Sex Offender In Colorado
The Court found that Brooks was not required to register as a sex offender, and, therefore, could not be legally convicted of failing to register.

Colorado's Sex Offender Registration Requirements
In Colorado - to be guilty of the criminal offense of failing to register as a sex offender, the defendant must be "[a] person who is required to register pursuant to article 22 of title 16, C.R.S [the sex offender registration statute]." § 18-3-412.5(1), C.R.S. 2011.

The Colorado law reads that
- "the purpose of sex offender registration is not to inflict additional punishment on a person convicted of a sexual offense, but rather to aid law enforcement officials in investigating future sex crimes and to protect the public safety." (and that).. Any person who was convicted on or after July 1, 1991, in another state or jurisdiction . . . of an offense that, if committed in Colorado, would constitute an unlawful sexual offense, as defined in section 18-3-411(1), C.R.S." is required to register under the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act. § 16-22-103(1)(b), C.R.S. 2011.

The Colorado Crime of Indecent Exposure 18-3-411
Section 18-3-411(1), C.R.S. 2011, states that an unlawful sexual offense includes "indecent exposure, as described in section 18-7-302. Indecent Exposure was then defined as knowingly expose[d] his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person." § 18-7-302(1)(a)

The Court compared the elements of the defendant's Texas conviction of indecency with a child by exposure. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(2) to the nearest equivalent of Indecent Exposure. The court found that the the Texas conviction was not the equivalent of the Colorado sexual offense of indecent exposure because the Colorado crime of indecent exposure contained an element missing from Texas's indecency with a child statute.

Colorado Law Requires An Element by Element Comparison of the Out Of State Criminal Conviction
In this case - when the two offenses were contrasted, it was clear that Colorado required an additional element that the crime be "under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person."....and that the Texas statute lacked the additional
element.

The Lesson Of This Case - Colorado's Failure to Register Law 16-22-103

If an individual moves to Colorado with a conviction for another's state's sex crime - after an analysis of the crime as compared to Colorado sex offender laws - the out of state conviction must satisfy all the elements at least one Colorado sex crime. If it does not - the individual is NOT required to register as a sex offender because the out of state conviction does not fall within the statutory requirements of sections 16-22-103(1)(b), 18-3-411(1), 18-3-412.5(1), and 18-7-302(1)(a). ..Source.. by H. Michael Steinberg has been a Colorado criminal law specialist attorney for 30 years (as of 2012). For the First 13 years of his career, he was an Arapahoe - Douglas County District Attorney Senior prosecutor. In 1999 he formed his own law firm for the defense of Colorado criminal cases.

In addition to handling tens of thousands of cases in the trial courts of Colorado, he has written hundreds of articles regarding the practice of Colorado criminal law and frequently provides legal analysis on radio and television, appearing on the Fox News Channel, CNN and Various National and Local Newspapers and Radio Stations. Please call him at your convenience at 720-220-2277

See this lawyer's explanation of this case.