ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Assembly Bill Would Increase Sex Offender Rights

The State Assembly is actively considering a bill, AB 1640, that would eliminate the registration requirement for sexual offenses that the California Supreme Court and several Courts of Appeal have ruled violate the equal protection rights of registered citizens.  The bill was introduced by Assembly member Jones-Sawyer (Democrat, Los Angeles) and is sponsored by Los Angeles District Attorney Lacey.

Assembly Bill 1640, if passed, would be an important step toward restoring the civil rights of registered citizens,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci.  “The bill would ensure that courts throughout the state of California consistently enforce recent court decisions.”

Recent court decisions to which the bill refer are based upon the case People v. Hofsheier in which the California Supreme Court ruled that mandatory lifetime sex registration was unconstitutional for those convicted of Penal Code Section 288a(b)(1).  Since that case, theHofsheier ruling has been applied to additional Penal Code Sections including 286(b)(1), 286(b)(2), 288a(b)(2), 288.7, 289(h) and 289(I).

California RSOL supports AB 1640 and will devote resources to its passage.  Registered citizens and family members can help to support the bill by contacting their Assembly members by phone, by E-mail and/or by letter.  A list of Assembly members and their contact information are available at

[note radius=”2″]NOTE: This Bill deals with 288a(b)(2) Oral Copulation with a Minor under 16 – NOT 288(b)(2) Lewd or Lascivious act on a Minor under 14 with force or violence[/note]

Bill InformationAB_1640_-_March_2014

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is great news. In addition, some (many?) California registrants may not have been aware of People v. Hofsheier. This may have implications for many currently on the registry. Obviously, one can’t jump to hopeful conclusions without investigating, but just to let you know it is possible.

I would love to find out

– how many people have filed a Hofsheier motion in the past 8 or so years,
– of those, how many actually got their registration requirement terminated for good,
– of those, how many were just ordered to register by court discretion under 290.006.


It appears to mean “We acknowledge some registration requirements are unconstitutional, but if you have any other registerable offenses we don’t care.” Here it is in a nutshell:

(d) Any person convicted on or before January 1, 2015, of any of the following offenses or attempt to commit any of those offenses, may seek discretionary relief from registration imposed under subdivision (b), if the person has not suffered any other conviction requiring registration:

(1) Subdivision (b) of Section 286.
(2) Subdivision (b) of Section 288a.
(3) Subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289.
(4) Section 283, if committed with the intent to commit a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 288a, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289.
(e) The offenses listed in subdivision (d) shall, pursuant to Section 290.006, be subject to discretionary imposition of the registration requirement in subdivision (b).

Editable version of the bill here:

AB 1640: JONES-SAWYER Sex Offenders: Registration

AB 1640 amends California’s Sex Offender Registration Law to eliminate the registration requirement for sexual offenses that the California Supreme Court and various Appellate Courts have ruled violate a defendant’s equal protection rights.

Currently, there are several non-forcible, “consensual” sexual offenses involving minors which require lifetime sex offender registration. These cases involve minors who are having a sexual relationship with someone over the age of 18. Although minors cannot legally consent to sexual activity, the cases are viewed as “consensual” because the sexual activity is not forced and the minor is a willing participant. The California Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts have found that mandatory, lifetime registration violates equal protection laws under these circumstances.

In People v. Hofsheier, the California Supreme Court ruled that mandatory lifetime sex registration pursuant to Penal Code section 290 for a violation of Penal Code section 288a(b)(1) was unconstitutional. In Hofsheier, the 22 year old defendant was convicted of engaging in oral sex with a minor. The Supreme Court stated that if the defendant had been convicted of Penal Code section 261.5 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor) he would not have been subject to mandatory lifetime sex offender registraition. Using the rational basis test, the California Supreme Court determined there was no rational basis for treating convicted offenders of Penal Code section 288a(b)(1) differently than those convicted of Penal Code section 261.5.

Several cases following the Hofsheier ruling have now applied the Hofsheier analysis and ruled that it also applies to the following Penal Code offenses:

1. Penal Code Section 286(b)(1) (People v. Thompson)
2. Penal Code Section 286(b)(2) (People v. Boyette)
3. Penal Code Section 288a(b)(2) (People v. Garcia)
4. Penal Code Section 288.7 (People v. Tiery)
5. Penal Code Section 289(h) (People v. Ranscht)
6. Penal Code Section 289(1) (People v. Gomez)

Existing Law
Penal Code Section 290 (California’s Sex Offender Registration Law) requires that defendants convicted of committing specified sex crimes must register with the California Department ofJustice as a sex offender.

This Bill
AB 1640 amends Penal Code section 290 to eliminate the registration requirement for sexual offenses which have been determined to violate equal protection laws, thus bringing the Penal Code into alignment with the ruling by the by the California Supreme Court and the subsequent rulings by various Appellate Courts under the Hofsheier reasoning. Under this proposal courts would still retain their discretionary power under Penal Code section 290.006 to impose sex offender registration in any case the court deems it appropriate.

While the number of cases filed would not be affected by this legislation, the number of trials would be decreased as lifetime sex offender registration is often the sole obstacle in reaching a disposition. Additionally, moving forward there would be a decrease in the number of Hofsheier writs of mandate.

FOR MORE INFORMATION — Contact Stephanie Burn, Office of Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer 916/319-2059

In all these post about 288 I never see anything about my charge which was 288.4(b). Would this bill change my registration requirement?

I’m in a similar situation, and watching for the same thing. With no actual victim, it seems our cases should not carry lifetime registration.

I’m in the exact same position and I don’t understand why those of us with no victim aren’t allowed to seek relief as well, it’s very puzzling and frustrating.

I have received an expungement and have a little over 5 years until I can file for my COR, however I would like to see those of us in this or similar situations included in this kind of legislation.

However, I’m very happy so see this step towards our ultimate goal of abolishing the registry once and for all!

It was an internet sting in which there wasnominor or victim.

This applies to 288a(b)(1), acts involving “force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person”, and not 288a itself, acts that didn’t involve violence? This doesn’t make sense to me.

Nevermind, I was looking at 288(b)(1) and 288(a), not 288a(b)(1) and 288a.

This bill directly impacts me. I was convicted of one count of 288a(b)(1) over 15 years ago. I was pretty young myself at the time (early 20s). My conviction has been dismissed/expunged and reduced to a misdemeanor, but I still have to register as a sex offender.

I was going to motion for a Hoffshier reduction, however my legal team recommended a certificate of rehabilitation instead. I got the impression from them that Hoffshier is extremely difficult to get even if you fit the profile of the court decisions, ever harder to obtain than a COR. I’m in the COR process now, will update everyone on how that goes.


Tim, in response to your last comment: 288a(b)(1) is oral copulation with someone under 18 years of age.

There is a separate penal code for oral cop. of someone under 16 years of age. Furthermore, there are other penal codes for oral cop. involving violence and coercion. This means that 288a(b)(1) is oral copulation with someone either 16 or 17 years of age with no violence or coercion, etc.

The way the codes are written is confusing: 288 = lewd acts, 288a = oral cop.


288a(b)(1) = oral copulation with someone under 18

288(a)(b)(1) = lewd act on a child under 14 years of age using violence

The parenthesis make a significant difference 🙂

Actually I think I was mistaken above – it should be 288(b)(1), not 288(a)(b)(1).

Sorry, I’m not a lawyer and they don’t make it easy to navigate these penal codes. Janice can correct me if I wrote anything that is incorrect.

Holy crap.. that was difficult to read with the red crossed out letters, the bright blue highlighted sections….
I am not even sure what the hell I just read…

This is a very positive step. What we all need to do is contact our California Assembly member and encourage support of bill AB 1640. We also need to tell as many people as we can to do the same thing. It is time for us to take action. Let’s do it today!

Ok.. Now it makes sense to me… it applies to the non-violent crimes like lewd acts with no force.. a regular 288A not a 288A(B).. I read the info from the actual website…. looks like it might apply to me… *does a double take* this looks to good to be true… but its still in its starting phase, so anything can happen….

Anyone know a good template I can used in relations to this bill so I can write/email my reps?

I don’t think it applies to lewd acts without violence on a minor under 14 years of age, 288(a). That is still in the proposed law for mandatory registration, (although these laws would get an F in an English class for readability). It looks like it only applies if the victim is over 16 and not coerced. Hey, what if the court typist forgot to put the parenthesis in someone’s sentencing documents?

My best friend is a court reporter. She gets tested for her accuracy. Court reporters are allowed a 2% error rate. Unbelievable and shocking as any errors can cause someones appeal to not be granted. Always record your court hearings to make sure the transcript is accurate.

This is good, but it merely codifies what already is the law under case law. It won’t relieve anyone of registration who isn’t already relieved under those rulings.

But I note, it is very good in that it will leave those offenses out of registration even if the court changes it tune, as it has done before.

For instance, the court back in the 1970s ruled that it was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment to require registration (which then was merely registration, none of the collateral horrors in place today) for lewd conduct. The Legislature subsequently took lewd conduct out of 290. Later, the court extended that thinking to at least some cases of indecent exposure. But the Legislature never took the step to have indecent exposure taken out of 290.

Now, our right wing court has overturned those rulings, saying even with all these horrors now added onto registration, it is no punishment at all much less unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. As such, since indecent exposure was never taken out of 290 after the court rulings giving relief, everyone with such a conviction is subject to registration. But those with lewd conduct convictions are not. Event he one who won that indecent exposure appellate ruling (and a subsequent one also ruling the same on indecent exposure) and was able to stop registering now has to register again. If the Legislature had taken indecent exposure out of 290 after those rulings, people convicted of indecent exposure would not have to register today.

So, this action is good for the long term, whereas relying on the case law could easily turn out to be only short term relief.

But while this is good, I think the lawmakers should have shown just a tiny bit of gumption and tacked on something just a bit more daring, like removing indecent exposure from 290, or even removing all misdemeanors from 290 — the public is not worried about misdemeanants and I’m sure would agree to take them out. The hotheads out there who would scream about it would be taken to be stupid, crazed loonies. Taking misdemeanors out of 290 is not a difficult sell to the public — or at least allowing misdemeanants to stop registering after completing probation and getting 1203.4 relief, as once was the case.

This bill should be supported — but I think CA RSOL and all of us should also strongly urge it be amended to be expanded to other easy offenses, which would mean misdemeanors. If they were willing to take more than just that tiny risk they should actually seek to take all offenses out of 290 for which registration is not required by the feds — that could be sold to the public very reasonably, although yes, it would be a little riskier politically than simply taking out misdemeanors.

That is to say, this is a good bill, but it hurts that it falls so short. (I will note, I’m against all registration, at least post probation or parole. And I would continue to push for it to be eliminated for everyone even if some offense I might have to register for were singularly taken out of 290.)

Anonymous Nobody:

I too think this is a good bill and should be supported. In fact, I think this is a big step in the right direction. I also wish they’d take a bigger bite, but this is a good start. The thing about this that grabs my attention is the fact that this is a actual physical offense they are talking about. I wonder if they will ever get around to the thought crime type of offenses where that was no physical contact with anyone, like looking at pictures, downloading etc. It seems like they would have started here but they didn’t, but at least something is happening to undo some of these panic feel good laws. I hope all the other ones are rethought soon.

Actually, I think it is a small step, since all they are doing is coordinating the law books with the state of the law. A major problem is that they are not leading, they are waiting for someone else to do it, the courts. If the courts don’t do it, these legislators are too wimpy to step up and lead.

If the legislators aren’t going to do anything to take offenses out of 290 until a court declares the inclusion to be unconstitutional, then you are not going to see any help at all. Hofshier was a anomaly, not a movement, not a change of attitude or thinking.

Great news and worthy of support. This is one step in the right direction, with many more steps to be taken to resolve the registration problem for registrants, taxpayers and law enforcement. Hopefully some nut case zealot doesn’t amend or shoot it down. Think though, if it passes, how flooded the courts could become!

I think they ought to amend the law to say registration is ex-post-facto punishment, and bring all the laws in compliance with the Constitution.

I think that ship sailed with Doe vs Harris last summer. It is on this web site somewhere.

Doe v. Harris was about whether the state of the law at the time of a plea bargain was part of a binding contract barring any changes in the law thereafter being applied to the defendant. It was not about the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto punishment. Other earlier cases addressed ex post facto punishment, ruling that registration is not punishment so could be applied retroactively. Doe v. Harris was an attempt to find another way to bar retroactive application of new laws for people who entered into plea bargains.

Right you are. Doe vs. Smith, then?

I almost find Doe vs. Harris more disturbing… allowing one party to a legally binding agreement to unilaterally alter the conditions and consequences in perpetuity. In what universe???

Yes Joe, I write contracts for job. Would that be great if I could change the contact at will in my favor. I’d have a lifetime income at someone’s expense. It’s as immoral as heck. But when the government does it, it is O-keedoekee. It somehow protects little white kids, you must remember.

I believe this is a great bill and will ensure that all my family and friends support it!

I am curious why 288(c)(1) wouldn’t be included in the list that could get registration relief. My thinking is, 288A(b)(2) is oral cop under 16, which my understand to mean 14 or 15. 288(c)(1) is L&L 14 or 15. Both of them cover the same age group, why the difference in possible registration/relief? Or am I completely missing something?

That is a good question. Hugging and kissing a 14/15 year old would indeed fall under 288(c)(1) and still be subject to mandatory registration, whereas oral sex with a 14/15 year old would not be subject to mandatory registration? Makes no sense. Makes as little sense as mandatory registration for oral sex with a 16/17 year old, but not for actual intercourse with a 16/17 year old (the basis for Hofsheier).

The only sane approach would be to do away with mandatory registration, period. Let the judge decide who should be watched… now, there is a concept. Judges – actually judging. Riiiight, that is going to happen.

This is one ginormous fustercluck.

Nothing in the registry makes sense, unless count keeping the enforcers of it employed.

“….now, there is a concept. Judges – actually judging….”

You know what, Joe, this comment is GOLDEN! I say that because it blows my mind how we are supposed to have separation of powers among the 3 branches of government. You would THINK that judges would hate how the Legislature is all but making them bench warmers (pun intended). They are being stripped of all of their discretion. Yet, when we cry foul and bring these cases before them, they bow to the very branch of government who is basically flipping them the bird. If I were a judge, I would have called bulls**t a LONG time ago if one of those cases ended up in my courtroom. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, so that’s why I loved this comment, Joe.
About the only case I know of where the Judiciary put its foot down was in Ohio a few years ago. I think the case was Bodyke in Ohio…it was a HUGE, GIGANTIC win for registered citizens. Maybe CA and other states can borrow Ohio’s judiciary since they seem to know how to follow the Constitution. What a concept!!!!!!

@ron lake county, ca …you’d be surprised what you don’t know…court record can be challenged before even a sentence so there could be a hearing to correct the record….problem is you have to have public funded personnel proceed in that process….they didn’t and would not interview witnesses to correct record and will assign you a “private attorney ” away from public defender..but guess what its really a state attorney ..its a sham ..they don’t want you to win and will undermine the scales to do it…try to get a real private attorney in the case before sentence to correct and judge won’t let in …try getting local civil rights activist to tell the assigned so called ‘private’ attorney to correct the record..the sham attorney maintained the tampered with record from the process to correct…this was before sentence…they don’t correct a record or correct injustice in orange county..they cover up their misconduct ..they don’t correct their reckless disregard to truth justice.

C) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, “except subdivision (b)” thereof, Section 288, 288a, “except subdivision (b)” thereof, or Section 289, except subdivisions (h) and (i), Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, “except subdivision (b)” thereof, Section 288, 288a, except subdivision (b) thereof, or Section 289,

(d) Any person convicted on or before January 1, 2015, of any of the following offenses or attempt to commit any of those offenses, may seek discretionary relief from registration imposed under subdivision (b), if the person has not suffered any other conviction requiring registration:
(1) Subdivision (b) of Section 286.
(2) Subdivision (b) of Section 288a.

Now I am totally confused… I was reading it on the leginfo site.. I see nothing but “except subdivision (b)” .. I also see they mentioned 288, 288a .. so if there is a (b) attached to 288 or 288a its not included on the list.. So this does apply to oral and lewd as long as the victim age and offender age falls under the category….

Thank you for posting the language — and that language is a MAJOR disappointment.

They aren’t taking those offenses out of 290 after all. They are leaving them in, but allowing you to somehow apply for relief, which it specifically states will be a discretionary decision, not something to which you are entitled. Hey, a COR is discretionary too, and you see how capriciously the courts have handled those.

So, now you have to file an application (and let the check writing begin) — it doesn’t say with whom, but you already could have filed in court to get the relief, so what is the benefit of this PRETEND change in the law?

If this is all it is, and they are not actually taking those offenses out of 290, I change my mind, I strongly oppose this bill. This is NOTHING, and codifying nothing can have a way to block doing anything more about it later. Codifying nothing is worse than doing nothing.

This application crap is one of the things I also spoke out against in creating the tiers. When creating tiers, one should not have to apply to anyone once your time has passed. There should be no application — hey, the state already knows, they have all the record or can see it if they suspect you are not beyond that time limit and have not registered so will know you are OK. (And that time frame should be from conviction, not according to how many years you actually registered with the state.)

The ONLY thing taken out of 290 by this proposed bil is the MANDATORY registration part for the stated offenses, along the lines of Hofsheier. Hofsheier, in a nutshell – he was a young man convicted of having voluntary oral sex with a 16 year old girl. For that offense – 288a(b)(1) – registration was mandatory. Had he had actual intercourse (unlawful sexual intercourse pc 261.5) on the same day with the same person it would have been DISCRETIONARY (note that, in the PC, oral sex, or really, all non-traditional, non-reproductive activities are in the section called “Bigamy, Incest and the CRIME AGAINST NATURE”.) He prevailed on this as in today’s reality it makes no sense to treat oral sex more harshly than actual sex. One must remember that it wasn’t that long ago that oral sex was a crime, period, even for consenting adults or married couples. As it is “against nature” – hello 1850s!

From the Hofsheier decision (2005?) forward all those convicted under 288a(b)(1) (oral sex with a minor under 18 (16/17) were no longer subject to MANDATORY registration, but rather to the judge’s discretion. Those automatically ordered to register for the same offense previous to 2005 could apply to remove the mandatory registration but subject themselves to court’s discretion.

All this bill is doing is expanding on Hofsheier and saying that a violation of the sections listed in the bill are no longer subject to MANDATORY registration, and all those convicted under and automatically ordered to register can apply to review the registration component. But a judge can order registration for any offense under 290.006 if they feel there is a sexual component (hard to argue its absence with a bj) and may very well order registration, at the time of sentencing for new cases or upon review of old cases. So even with the best presented application, the judge at the trial court can just say, yeah, this all sounds good, but I am ordering the defendant to register for an offense (x years / decades in the past) because I can under 290.006 and no reasons or rationale need be given.

So while this sounds good in theory and worked for Mr. Hofsheier (except now his name will be forever linked to the subject matter), the proof is in the pudding and this is unless there are some actual cases of relief granted.

Hence my prior question – how many people had their registration terminated under a Hofsheier motion in the past 8 years – other than he himself, and how many applicants continue to register under discretionary orders from the court?

Yeah it sounded like back to square one… if you don’t want to register you’ll still have to “apply” for the laws discretion… which sounds like what we have already tried before…

Big Red Stamp…. “Denied”

I still find the proposed statutory language very disturbing. Looking at the motion that was entered, and comparing it to the proposed statutory language — they do not seem to be in sync.

The motion says it wants to eliminate those charges from mandatory registration, although making it clear that another section of 290 that allows the court to order registration for any offense the court decided involved sexual compulsion or gratification could still be applied (it should not say that, that goes without saying, and saying it leads one to think it might be intended to say something more).

But the proposed statutory language seems to be saying that mandatory registration remains but there will be the ability to ask to be relieved of that requirement. And having thought about that a bit more, that is the opposite of what we thought at first. That would actually be overriding the court decision and reinstating registration for this offense unless there was a discretionary decision to waive it. That decision would be the loophole to make the mandate legal again, since that loophole could be used to give the Hofshier exemption after review — but if they could manage to find something, anything, that makes even a tiny unaddressed distinction from Hofshier, they could leave the registration requirement in place — because that proposed statutory language seems to impose it until there is a decision to do otherwise. Regardless, even if you spent the money on the lawyer and won, between the time of your conviction and when you finally got and won that review, you would have to register, and if these offenses are ones to be posted on the Internet, you would be posted in the meantime, and then after you won, have to make sure all that was taken down.

This is atrocious. Heck, everyone convicted on those charges already can ask the court to end their registration, or technically they could just stop, and if the state wanted to enforce it, they would defend by pointing to Hofshier. Now, they have no choice but to undertake this review. And the court can try to distinguish fromHofshier, whereas if the offenses were simply taken out of 290, no review would be needed, and no distinctions from Hofshier would matter.

The motion sounds acceptable (although too little, as my post above comments). The proposed statutory language is absolutely not acceptable, as it seem to actually reinstate registration.

The more I think about this, the worse it seems. This is absolutely designed to reinstate registration for those offenses — the opposite of what we thought at first because of wildly misinformed article at top. This is not designed to provide an avenue for relief; it is designed to override Hofshier and give a new ability to instead require people convicted of those offenses to register on the basis of the other language in 290 providing for a discretionary order to register upon a finding of sexual compulsion.

Simply under Hofsheir, the court could not instead impose a discretionary order to register on the basis of sexual compulsion because that part of the sentencing was already complete. But with this requirement for the defendant to apply for a review for relief added into 290 and specifically including the ability to then use the discretionary clause of 290 to impose registration, that makes a new legal ability for that discretionary order that otherwise was barred. Hofshier himself could be ordered to start registering again! (It does not say who does the review, whether that would be the court or maybe a state agency.)

This is a very a sneaky bill — CA RSOL should not only now oppose it vehemently, but we should speak out to have the lawmaker who proposed it (Assembly member Jones–Sawyer) voted out of the Legislature — (s)he is poison to us.

The article at top by CA RSOL is wildly misrepresenting what this bill does — that needs to be seriously rewritten, to warn everyone.

This bill gives discretion to a judge (a person trained to judge) on the registration component of a conviction for the stated offenses – current, future and past. How is that a bad thing?

I agree that the headline is a bit unfortunate, as I do not really see any ‘rights’ gained.

Because, as I explained, the judge cannot impose that discretionary registration for people already sentenced, which is who this applies to. This new law would give the judge the ability to impose the discretionary registration that he now cannot do.

All this bill is doing for people already convicted on those charges is giving the court the chance to impose registration despite Hofsheier, although it could not do so without this bill. This bill is not reducing registration for those people, it is increasing it. Thanks toHofsheier, those people are now free and clear. But this bill would allow the reimposition of their registration. They just got out from under it, and now they might be forced to start registering again.

Yes, in looking at the full text, it does seem that going forward, those offenses are taken out of registration — and that is good. Of course, any and all offenses can be subject to discretionary registration. But reimposing it on people already relieved under Hofsheier (or under anything else, as far as I’m concerned) is no different than any other retroactive imposition of registration.

Okay, one more time… before 2005 / Hofsheier 288a(b)(1) – Oral cop with a person under 18 (16/17) was subject to MANDATORY registration. No wiggle room. None.

After 2005 / Hofsheier MANDATORY registration was no longer required, mandatory, for this offense. The reason for this was that PC 261.5 – Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with the same age group is not subject to MANDATORY registration and that just makes no sense. This applied to future and past offenses, giving those previously convicted and ordered to mandatory registration the option to file a motion and to ask a judge to lift the mandatory registration part.

However, this is not to say that a judge could not impose registration at the court’s discretion, either at the time of sentencing for current convicts or at the motion for past convicts (making the effort for those people moot – as they were registering anyway).

The argument that now non-registered people are in danger of being ordered to register makes no sense because any person who this would affect is already registered. He must have been, because it was mandatory. There is the possibility for relief, but not the danger of newly imposed registration.

What this bill does is expand this to the under 16 (14/15) age group, as well as sex penetration and sodomy.

This bill will have no, zero impact on those already relieved of registration under Hofsheier (if there are any / many).

Does this even apply to me?

I was convicted of the following


The 664 is for attempted. This was an internet sting. I’m currently fighting an appeal with the DA and AG for an expungement I was granted under People vs. Lewis. From what I’ve been reading in the comments if there was an actual “victim” then I could not be granted 290 relief but what about for attempted?

@ One Day at a Time; I’ll bet I can name the county yours happened in because I have identical charges. Please let me know of your progress with your record clearance and any other helpful info you might have. All I’ve found out thus far is that record clearance is mandatory if we’ve met certain conditions, and I was told that I could not be granted a COR. Seems the courts don’t make much of a difference between an attempt or a completed crime and most attorneys have difficulty with the interpretations of the laws in our cases.
Please keep me posted.

Will do mch. The DA is basically saying ANY 288 charge attempted or completed should not be eligible for clearance and that the 4th district ruled incorrectly in People vs Lewis. The judge agreed with him at the hearing but granted it anyways because of the Lewis case. If things work in my favor I’ll advertise my lawyer. I just can’t see how state law could be one thing in the 4th district and something else in a different district. I’m not sure what would happen if I lost in appeal, maybe someone with some legal expertise can advise?

I do have to ask! We have high risk, serious and other offenses (misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor indicent exposure? Would these two offenses be no brainers to include as well?

Thank you USA. That was my comment above. 🙂 And in fact, why not all misdemeanors taken out. In fact, why not simply conform to Federal.

Registration is supposed to prevent future crime. It fails because using offense based criteria makes no sense. The more “severe” crimes with victims sometimes show the lowest re-offense. Individuals commit crime, not penal codes. Until they can develop a reliable way to rate an individuals risk, stop using offence to justify registration.

I’m a bit confused here,I hope someone out there can let me know. There seems to be Two California public safety committees both seem to be through the senate and the general assemply. Which of the two committees research investigate and vote on AB1438 AND AB1640? #1. THE California Senate Committee public Safety AND #2. Public safety committee State of Californa.
Both have complete diffrent members yet both deal with the penal code laws.

I noticed that both have a majority of a specific color sceam on their internet home pages.
The Senate Committee of Public Safety (SCOPS) is RED and the Public Safety Committee fOR California (PSCC) IS Green. So That also will help me to know which one (I have been sending my e-mails to the Red Colored home page OF THE Senate California of Public Safety (SCOPS).

Neil B Fisher

Hofshier implied that registration is punishment. Why else would the price club membership be alright for one offence and an imposition for a similar offence? I’m not a politician, so I can say I can support no bill that does not end offense based after the sentence is done registration.


Tried looking for a follow up on this bill here on CARSOL. I did a google search and learned that this bill failed on May 29th. Back to the drawing board.

Okay I got convicted for oral copulation w a minor 288a (b)(1) didn’t have to register as sex offender this law is good for the community Bc for these type of cases these aren’t predators they are early 20s having sex with someone sex with 16 or 17s all I’m saying is these people aren’t whack jobs in my case the girl was month before 18 I was 3 months before 22 so it was a technicality but it sounds like I’m this horrible person that I’m not and now I’m paying g for it for the rest of my life BC its almost impossible to get a job BC I’m considered scum still even though I’m not a sex offender so I work hard labor jobs its been 6 years and I know I’ll never be done paying my pound of flesh to society BC they’ll always hold everything against you


did this bill pass?

i have

261.5 (non registerable offense)
286b1 sodomy with minor under 18
288ab1 oral cop with minor under 18

can i get rid of my requirement to register?!!

No. The bill failed in May 2014.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x