ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

[Updated] Doe v Harris

UPDATED — DECISION EXPECTED on Monday, July 1 at 10 am

to be argued on Wednesday, April 3, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles

Ronald Reagan State Office Building
300 South Spring, Street, Third Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles, California,

CA Supreme Court Calendar: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/calendars/SAPR13.PDF

Case Info: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1975459&doc_no=S191948

 

Join the discussion

  1. mike

    The debate:
    1)Does the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement bind the parties?
    answer: Yes
    2)Can the terms of a plea agreement be affected by changes in the law?
    answer: NO
    Otherwise you would not make agreements. It’s pretty simple. Will government continue to endorse this discrimination?

  2. Janice Bellucci

    This case could have great significance to registrants. The issue before the state supreme court is: “Under California law of contract interpretation as applicable to the interpretation of plea agreements, does the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement bind the parties or can the terms of a plea agreement be affected by changes in the law?” If the court decides that terms of a plea agreement cannot be affected by changes in the law, there will be many individuals who are no longer on the registry.

    • http404

      I am sure there are THOUSANDS like me who would never have agreed to a plea bargain over a decade or two ago if we were awarded the forethought of understanding it meant being subject to an ever-changing set of rules with tighter and tighter restrictions. I remember following a similar case around 2005 in the State of New York, where retroactive application of website listings was upheld but the courts there ruled that in cases of plea bargains it was a breach of contract. I don’t know if a higher court later overturned that though, and New York isn’t California.

    • C

      Ditto. When I copped a plea in 1987 I never thought that today I would be living like a fugitive for fear of losing work, friends (don’t bother making them anymore) or harm coming to my wife and kids.
      Had I known then what I know now I would have bought an a$$load of Apple stock…oh and worked out a better deal. 😉

      This will be a God send and I am hoping and praying the courts decide in our favor!!!

  3. Bill (with a capital G)

    I got notification today that S191948 is actually moving to arguments.

    What do you *really* think the Court will decide?

    The Supreme Court will decide that plea agreements in criminal matters, for the purpose of the contract between the defendant and the court, are only binding for the duration of the term of criminal control specified in the sentence handed down. After the termination of imprisonment, parole, probation, (or whatever) is over, the contract entered into in the relevant plea bargain becomes moot.
    Sex Offender registry is not a punishment under the law, therefore the lifetime requirement to register cannot be included in the terms of a plea bargain as it does not pertain to criminal control. Therefore, in every situation other than a 290 requirement, the terms of a plea bargain bind the parties and contract law is understood to prevail.
    However, Sex Offenders registries in a class by themselves and may be used by any entity, public or private, to discriminate against Sex Criminals for any purpose such entity may deem fit, up to and including blatant assault, public stoning, beheading on Public Television or herding-and-slaughtering.
    We must all act together to defend our children and the Supreme Court cannot be seen as mollycoddling these public enemies, especially in these times of increased danger and threat to our culture, society and Beloved Country.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Bill, if you are not completely wrong on this, I will be an unhappy camper.

      Point in contention to your argument: when one enters a plea agreement, or any contract, one does so considering all that is or might come into play, not simply the elements in the contract itself. So, to say that existing laws such as those on SOR are not part of the understanding is to not understand what an agreement is, as opposed to a mere sentencing. The agreement takes all into consideration whereas the sentencing is only the sentencing. The status of that agreement is DIRECTLY linked to other laws that prevail.

      If the law in effect at the time of the agreement prevails in this case, then SOR cannot be applied retroactively to all those who pled in a plea agreement and got and successfully completed probation prior to about the early or mid 1980s — as prior to that, the law provided for an end to SOR upon obtaining the 1203.4 relief at the completion of probation. That law was changed to deny that relief to felons in the early or mid 1980s, but it continued for misdemeanants until the early or mid 1990s, so SOR could not be applied retroactively to those misdemeanants. That was the standard to be granted relief from SOR. It has subsequently been increased to require at least a certificate of rehabilitation for a misdemeanant, and a pardon for a felon. But how can you simply change the standard and use that to retroactively take away the relief that those in good faith did their part to earn and had already been granted?!

      To enter a plea agreement that specifically paves the way to 1203.4 relief that specifically provides for an end to SOR is all part of the understanding in the agreement, it is the REASON one enters into the agreement. Simply serving of probation isn’t all there is to the agreement, but also the post probation relief.

      The situation is that there was a standard for relief from SOR. The person did what it took to meet that standard and was grated relief from SOR. LATER, they come along and change the standard and tell you you have to start registering again! How can that be legal?! So, if you meet the current standard for a misdemeanor and get a certificate of rehabilitation so can stop registering, will you have to start registering again when they subsequently change the standard to actually getting a full pardon? What is the point of doing your part and reaching a standard and obtaining relief if it is just taken away at whim?!

    • Joe

      I think what is a unique opportunity about this case is that it is a civil matter of contract law, outside of the criminal realm. One can only hope that these appointed (for 12 years – not elected) judges are able to separate the law from the whole SO context.

      I have a hard time believing that they would find it acceptable for one party to unilaterally alter the terms of a legally binding agreement after the fact.

      But then again, I find many things difficult to believe.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Joe, mistake. The California high court judges must stand for a retention election every 12 years, meaning they can be voted off the court.

        Also, I think you should have a hard time believing they might go the way you can’t believe they would go. After all, this question was referred to them by the Ninth Circuit, because the Ninth Circuit did not consider it at all obvious.

        Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit has already said that the case is completely dependent on this question, and that they will decide it following what the Calif. high court rules. Unfortunately, the California high court is more conservative, and the Ninth Circuit has basically said it will abdicate to the California court. Hey, if the plaintiffs wanted the California court to decide, they would have filed in the California court.

        And I note, the federal judges are not subject to election, as the state judges are.

        • Joe

          @Anonymous Nobody – right you are. Shoddy reading on my part – I did not get past the ‘appointed’ part. Please disregard statement to the contrary.

          Thanks for the correction and clarification.

  4. Diana

    We filed a motion in Torrance Superior Court on behalf of my husband regarding this same issue and the hearing was 10-14-11. The original conviction was back in 1981. Unfortunately the motion to withdraw the plea based on this same issue was denied. The DA never filed an opposition and had not even reviewed the file until the morning of the hearing. The judge stated that our attorney could not demonstrate prejudice against my husband. Let him spend a week in my husband’s or children’s shoes and he will understand prejudice. I hope the court in this case is more focused and clear on the matter.

  5. Steve

    What about laws passed later like Internet and park bans . Obviously some are hoping to get of the list altogether but wondering about just getting off the internet and not having to worry about more laws?

  6. http404

    Remember folks, California Supreme Court is NOT deciding this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is. BUT… the state high court is answering a very important question that will help the federal court determine how THEY will rule.

  7. anon

    I wonder how we can show support for Doe. Are we to go to the courtroom with signs? lol

  8. Bill (with a capital G)

    The correct decision would be for the Court to state that terms of plea bargains bind all parties forever. So if the terms of your plea included the requirement to register, your responsibilities are what was specifically in effect at the time of your conviction and nothing more. Anything else is tantamount to double, if not multiple jeopardy. In order to stay abreast of the constant changes in the law one must research and re-register almost on a weekly basis and failure to do so makes one out of compliance and subject to felony prosecution.

    But since we have not eradicated all forms of sex crime, we must continue to apply increasing pressure on those convicted regardless of the individual circumstances (read Bill-of-Attainder). By constantly lowering the threshold for registration, the word gets out that if you even *think* about proscribed sex, you will have your entire life mauled. The registries are a public-relations exercise to prevent future crime and are not considered ‘continuing criminal control’ by the legislatures.

    We’ll see what comes down in April, but sadly there is little hope that justice will be advanced. The stakes are just too high for the prosecuting agencies. The administrative nightmare involved in reclassifying every RSO by prosecution date and applicable law is just too daunting, although you could write a BASIC language program that would do the job in about five minutes.

  9. anon

    I wonder if this federal immigration case has any bearing. It states that attorneys must advise non-citizen clients of deportation consequences.

    I believe one of the consequences is that in deportation proceedings, if the particular “deportation” box is unchecked, that person cannot be deported since they never agreed to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padilla_v._Kentucky

  10. Bill (with a capital G)

    Padilla v. Kentucky is a long stretch, and the Sixth Amendment is longer.

    At issue in S191948 (Doe v. Harris) is whether-or-not subsequent changes in the law can be applied retroactively.

    At first blush, it seems rather straightforward; Thus-and-such law in incorporated into the terms of a plea bargain and so those laws are the ties that bind the parties. But that’s not the way the prosecuting agencies view the Registries. Every time you visit your Local Friendly Officer charged with overseeing the SOR in his or her community, you are informed by the LFO of certain changes in the laws regarding your life as a registrant..and that’s where the rubber meets the road.

    I have been an RSO for nearly forty years, the first thirty of which I lived exactly within the terms of my plea. Then in year thirty-one, suddenly I was a felon again. I was rearrested, bailed on my own recog, and requested a Public Defender. When it (finally) got to court, I held out for a full jury trial and the prosecution caved. Year thirty-two, the LFO tried it again and got smacked down by her chief.

    There was absolutely no reason for any of it, but they aren’t reasonable people. If they were, we wouldn’t need S191948.

  11. A Friend

    This case is alot better for all than that proposed “tier”…level…
    catorgory…labels…type “tier”…which puts people in levels that a
    jury or court never weighed on the scales…grossly ex post facto…
    putting people unfairly in “tiers”……this case with the registry as
    it read conviction/plea is by far more fairer to be off registry.

  12. Ranon

    This is tomorrow… best of luck to Doe

  13. Anonymouse

    Does anyone know what this means?

    04/04/2013 Motion for leave to intervene filed by Chester Hill, non party
    04/17/2013 Motion for leave to intervene denied The motion for leave to intervene, filed on April 4, 2013, is denied.

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1975459&doc_no=S191948

  14. steve

    Somebody wanted to be included in this ruling who has a similar situation (not necessarily an RSO) and the court denied it.

  15. Law Student

    What came of this law? Anyone know? I think what all courts should do is say the registry is a part of the criminal law and not part of civil. Especially when some cities/states say you have 24 hours to give your address change or you spend 10 years in prison with a felony. I worked in a police station doing nothing but registration of SO’s. I couldn’t believe half their stories until they brought me the court documents. I hope this case will bring about something more. My hope is it brings the law into a perspective that defines exactly what sex offending is (which I know it won’t but one can hope). So many out there believe the registry is just for pedophiles. They think everyone on there molested a child or murdered a baby while raping it. Not true. I hope the Supreme Court steps in at some point and makes it more definable. My belief is this: if you are going to go to prison for not complying with the registry in some way, then the registry should be a part of criminal process of law only. It shouldn’t be considered civil in any way. I have always thought it was part of the criminal process since you have to register at a police department and not down at some department like the DMV. I couldn’t believe it when one of the professors told me it is considered a civil law process and not a criminal one once you are out of prison and done with your punishment. It isn’t right that you are on it for life when you aren’t in prison for life or on probation for life. Now I can understand if you are a chronic offender, but not for someone who really isn’t a sex offender. Now I know I am splitting hairs but anyone on the list knows what I mean. I think some of the more rural lower courts have used the registry to put shame on the citizens in that town. I have seen some cases that are just way out there. My hope is that more cases appear and we as a society are then forced to put this registry back to what its original intention was. A registry of people who will break into your home, snatch you off the street, murder you, torture you, rape you, and traumatize you so much that you never heal from it. I hope this is the start of the higher courts intervening and splitting those hairs that so need splitting.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Law Student, your concept of the original intent of the registry law is far off base. California was the first to institute one, back in about 1947, and was the only state with one for many decades. At the time the Clinton Administration, under Janet Reno, expanded it nationwide, only three states had a registry.

      But pretty much all the offenses now subject to registry were subject to it in California from the beginning — so that’s your original intent. In fact, one has been taken off the mandatory list, lewd conduct, although SOR can still be ordered for that upon a showing (which often is little other than an assertion) of sexual compulsion.

      In fact, when it was started in the 1940s, and for several decades thereafter, one of its primary uses was to nail gays for conduct that is now legal. And various misdemeanors were always subject to it under the original intent.

      Also, the Supreme Court has already stepped in, both state and federal. Both have bent interpretations completely out of shape to stretch however far is necessary — and to flat out blatantly lie — to say this is just civil, and that this is no burden to the registrants of any consequence, that it is no big deal.

    • nobody2

      I hope you join our fight with this.
      Thank you so much for posting this and there is hope when some one like a law student like you interested in all this.

  16. Anonymous Nobody

    The California Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Harris, regarding whether subsequent law changes can be applied retroactively to defendants who pled in a plea bargain, will be issued on Monday, July 1, at 10 a.m. That is, does the law in effect at the time of the plea bargain bind the parties, or can it be completely undermined by subsequent changes in the law, leaving the person who agreed to plead guilty to suffer any number of penalties he/she never would have agreed to.

    • Staying Positive

      Would a ruling in favor of Doe have any applicability to those still on probation? I entered into a plea bargain before mandatory polygraph examination was, well, mandated. There is nothing about taking a polygraph in my probation agreement, but the practitioner I go to says they are required for everyone that was on probation as of last July, regardless of when their sentencing occurred.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Well, I believe it will only affect retroactivity. To be honest, I had not heard about this mandatory polygraphs exam, and can’t see how it could be legal since it isn’t even admissible in court. Nonetheless, this ruling will affect retroactivity. I would think it would affect you. But in previously cases concerning retroactivity, I have seen the court measure from the time you try to implement a law, not from the time of conviction. Possibly this ruling could change where that retroactivity is measured, and all those people who have lost by it being measured at a later date that the conviction date might also benefit.

        Frankly, don’t get too worried about the details — until the ruling comes down. I don’t think we have a California high court that wants to do anything that might help a defendant, so I am afraid they will bend any interpretation they have to to rule against Doe. I think at best, they might somehow split the consideration, applying it differently to criminal matters, that is to matters of punishment, than to civil ones, and thus, SOR being considered civil and nonpunitive, might not even be affected. The final ruling will be by the Ninth Circuit, but it already has said it will rule the same way the state court rules.

        • Staying Positive

          I’m no expert in the law (or I wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with) but admissability of polygraphs is at a lower threshold for probation hearings supposedly as compared to admissability for evidence at trial. Or that’s what I gather from the group sessions I go to.

  17. Eric Knight

    Would a favorable Doe v Harris ruling in our favor apply to plea agreements made in courts from other states? For instance, if another state’s court judgment for an RSO indicated a finite registation period, would Doe v. Harris supersede the State’s legislative requirement of lifetime registration?

    Obviously a negative decision negates the above, but there are a lot of gray areas that can be included.

  18. nobody2

    will this impact federal court?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.