ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

ACSOLCalifornia

Court Expands Eligibility for Certificates of Rehabilitation [with CORRECTION]

CORRECTION: The information in the article below is based upon a court document from 2014 that was mistakenly identified as a 2015 appellate court decision. Regrettably, this year’s decision did not expand eligibility, but instead eliminated eligibility for many individuals to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

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.”

Related

https://all4consolaws.org/tag/certificate-of-rehabilitation/

FAQ #10

Join the discussion

  1. Craig

    This seems like good news for the people in California, Texas has a deregistering process but is limited and then the judge has to agree which has been very difficult to have these judges do. They should just take the judges out and allow a board to decide. Hope this works out for many of you.

  2. USA

    Well, I think this is wonderful news, unless you reside in OC. I was arrested almost 20 years ago and eventually plead to a battery charge with Summary Probation. I eventually (on my own) had the charge reduced to a misdemeanor (LA County) and expunged. I eventually filed a COR in OC. I was shocked. The DA was out of control. She had the alleged victim show up/had a letter written by the LA DA (signed by the OC DA) and the list went on and on. Eventually the Judge stated he had no reason to deny the motion, but it wasn’t enough? If you read the statues for a COR in California, I believe it states an Attorney isn’t supposed to charge a fee? I’ve called Chance on one occasion. He sounds truly wonderful, but I was rather shocked by his fee request. Good luck

    • Eric Knight

      Considering that the fee for consultation that Chance charges for is unusually low for the salient type of advice that is needed in this complicated issue, I don’t think you will find a much better price that will afford you anywhere near Chance’s competence. He DOES have to eat, you know.

    • Timmr

      I don’t understand. Were you the USA who said he was in the upper 5% income bracket? As such, it seems to me that is not much of a sacrifice to pay the man (who by the way has volunteered already a lot of his time to help us all out in his service to CARSOL) for a very valuable service. It’s your money, but wouldn’t getting off this registry be worth it?

      • NPS

        You forget…USA has stated several times that it’s the registry that has kept him in line. So not only is he in the prestigious 5% club of higher earners, he is also part of the <1% who is likely to reoffend.

    • Janice Bellucci

      It’s time to set the record straight. There is no law that prohibits an attorney from charging for his/her legal services in support of a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

      • G4Change

        And rightfully so, Janice. You, Chance and anyone else who fights for our rights deserve to be compensated for your time, hard work, expertise, miles driven, etc. Anyone who feels otherwise needs to rethink things in my opinion.

        • http404

          I take Janice’s comment to also serve as a warning not to get duped. There are dozens of shady attorneys who, ever since December 2004 when California’s Megans’ Law website went live, have farmed data on offenders and sent out letters saying, YOU might qualify for an exemption from the website OR a certificate of rehabilitation. They are all to happy to take your money and take your case even if you don’t qualify under the statutes.

          I was a casualty of timing when they changed the law back in 1997. I was 6 months short of qualifying so I went to an attorney who was happy to take my money. Several thousands of dollars later and armed with a stack of letters of favorable character witness as well as a positive letter from the therapist who worked with me for several years, I sat in court completely crushed as my attorney approached judge David O.Carter’s bench in OC and watched Carter shake his head no. My attorney came back to me and advised I withdraw my application because if I submitted it he was going to deny it and better to not apply than to apply and have it on record that I was denied. Carter had already been groomed for a federal court seat and was buying his time for appointment. In hindsight I wish I had applied anyway and filed for 6 months of continuances.

          So my advice is check first and see if you do qualify for COR, and if you believe you do, ask an attorney to check if you qualify. Then if you are eligible there is still no guarantee, it still isn’t a 50/50 chance because the judge has discretion. You are better off supporting changes in the laws themselves, like supporting California RSOL who are working hard to do do this, to seek relief from an ever growing list of burdens, obligations and restrictions being placed upon registered citizens who really just want to get on with their lives after making a terrible mistake and paying dearly for it.

    • C

      Perhaps you could get together with Bernie Sanders and those brilliant young people protesting for free college and combine your efforts.

  3. G4Change

    “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.'”

    This judge is an idiot, and I’m glad this judge was in the minority!!!

    This decision will allow thousands of citizens who made a horrible mistake in their distant past the OPPORTUNITY to show a court that they have paid their debt, learned their lesson, and truly changed. It’s called due process. Beyond that, it doesn’t allow or guarantee anything.
    To deny a person an opportunity to show they are worthy of s second chance after a certain time period and after successfully completing ALL requirements is absurd and Unamerican.
    I’m glad the majority sees differently!

  4. Q

    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.”

    And rightly so.

  5. mike

    Hello my crime was for 288a in 1989 so what steps do I take to make this happen for myself and many others u

    • NPS

      What specifically is your 288a? You can have a COR for a 288a(b)(1)….it’s ALWAYS been that way so long as its a misdemeanor.

      • COOL CA RC

        what about 288(c) ?

        • noname

          What about 288.4(b) that was a no victim internet sting

        • NPS

          Taken verbatim from the CoR packet (with respect to 290 and bold emphasis added):


          A person is eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation if he/she:
          Was convicted of a felony or misdemeanor sex offense specified in PC 290, the accusatory pleading of which was dismissed pursuant to PC 1203.4
          Has not been incarcerated in any penal institution or agency since the dismissal of the accusatory pleading;
          Is not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and
          Presents satisfactory evidence of five years residence in California immediately prior to the filing of the petition.

          Persons who are ineligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation include those who do not meet the above eligibility criteria and those who were/are:
          Convicted only of misdemeanors (except those convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense specified in PC 290, which was dismissed pursuant to PC 1203.4)
          Convicted of PC 286(c), 288, 288a(c), 288.5, or 289(j).

          So it would seem there are two steps. You MUST have 1203.4. If you don’t, get the 1203.4 BEFORE applying for a CoR. If you are not eligible for a 1203.4, then you cannot get a CoR.

  6. USA

    Mike, delending upon your financial situation, I would either contact the public defenders office or a reputable attorney. There are so many variables. Did you do prison time? County time? Is the offense a Felony or misdemeanor? 1 count? Good luck

  7. Bruce Ferrell

    I was convicted of PC 288(a) in ’93. There was no parole; seven years probation and county time. When I applied to be removed from the web site in 2007, due to the circumstances of the offense, I was deemed to be ineligible.

    I’m not clear on this “a registrant who was convicted of PC 288(a) and who completed parole 13 years ago is eligible to apply for a certificate.”

    Does this mean:

    a.) 13 years OR MORE
    b.) eligible without regard to circumstances.
    c.) what is the effect of the statue change two years ago that removed the inequity in the law. (AB1438 passed August 2014)

  8. jo

    Can Chance or Janice represent me or someone they would recommend? This is FANTASTIC news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Harry

    I have a certificate of rehabilitation, now. What I should do next?

    • James

      This is great, great news, Harry, congratulations! Would you mind describing at least in a general way how you went about getting your COR? Were you represented, or did you do this yourself?

      What were you convicted of? Again, in general, I do not wish to make anyone uncomfortable….but those of us considering following your path, some details would be truly helpful.

      I am a little curious why, and this is not a criticism, this is only being posted now? Apparently, the first Tirey decision was published on November 15, 2013, and the re-hearing published on April 25, 2014.

      Of course, had the link to Tirey had been published at CALRSOL earlier, I probably would not have seen this…so it is all good.

      Best Wishes, J

      • James

        Harry, I have been reading around here, and this is I think the answer to your question:

        “The COR papers took a month to arrive from the court, by mail. I waited 30 days and checked with the DOJ in Sacramento, and they had never received any of the documents. I faxed and mailed them in. It took another 30 days to be removed from the Megan’s Law website, a total of 3 months after being granted a COR.”

        This is from a wonderful post and thread started by Ranon, here:

        https://all4consolaws.org/2013/04/certificate-of-rehabilitation/

        Good Stuff Indeed!

        Best Wishes, J

        • Harry

          James: I actually, have two CORs. I have one dated 12/9/1997 and my understanding that was for one count 288(a) and the other one is dated 1/25/2000 was supposed to be for four counts of 647.6. However, the 288(a) and the 647.6s are of the same judicial setting.

      • Moderator

        The Google is your friend… we added the link to the decision at the bottom of the post. ***Moderator***

        http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020151112122/PEOPLE%20v.%20TIREY

  10. Chris

    Good news for you all. In Cali.

    Now Janis and Chance need to work on section 311. How can a touch crime be considered less deviant then a non-touch crime?

    I was told that i would never be able to get a Cetificate for my 311.11a conviction.

    Oh and Janus/Chance i thank god everyday for all the hard work you do.

  11. MichaelRS

    I have a single count misdemeanor in OC that I was more than eligible for, timewise, in 2014 I applied for my COR.
    The fact that I was never eligible to be put on the Megan’s Law website says that, by mechanism of law, based on my offense, I am NOT considered a danger to the public so there’s no reason to warn them about me by putting me on the web site.

    The OC District Attorney opposed the petition making it sound like Phil Garrido or Rodney Alcala. But we are appealing.

    The basis of the appeal is, basically, that the judge denied my petition based on me DA’s musings that I did not prove that I was no longer. Even though I was no danger to. Even though I was not considered a danger to begin with.
    And not only do they ask for arbitrary things beyond the law, like psychological reports. but then they ask you to prove a negative. Prove you are not going to do something. So yeah if individual the judges make up their individual requirements then nobody could get a certificate.
    It’s Alice in Wonderland insane.

    What I would like to know is that in the last 10 years of every ESO who applied for a certificate, How many for granted in OC?

    I think the whole way they handle this there must be some prosecutorial and or judicial misconduct going on there.

    Well, hopefully, my appeal will shed some light on that. But I’m sure they will fight it with every fiber of your being. Especially since the Orange County DA’s office and the DA in particular gotta egg on its face with their Park restriction ordinances recently.
    Yeah Tony it was real bullet proof in the courts, like you assured all those cities, wasn’t it?

  12. MK

    Will this cover federal felonies, too?

    How can there be a way to unregister only for those convicted with crimes at the state level? After all, the state wrote the law that mandates federal felons to register, so they should equally allow them to be able to qualify for unregistering. Can anyone shed some light regarding the legal theory on this?

  13. USA

    MichaelRS, good luck. Truly. Please disregard many of the comments or dialogue. Some of the individuals are truly sad cases and try to lash out on others to forget their sorrows. I believe most good Attorneys charge anywhere from $2500 -5K for a COR. Honestly, processing the paperwork is a pretty easy process. I processed my initial COR on my own, but once I became aware of how OC operates, I hired someone to stand in and address the DA. Good luck again

    We welcome all input but ask that you stay civil and on-topic.
    – We will NOT publish any names not mentioned in the linked media piece, nor any calls to violence.
    – Comments on this site are moderated – one of our volunteer moderators will review your comment as soon as possible.
    – We will do our best to ensure a productive dialogue, but please acknowledge that some moderating decisions are subjective.
    – If you want to link to a relevant and serious media piece please paste the full URL, no shortened links (like bit.ly, etc). We will not post them or click on them.
    – NO all-caps – please. Thank you.

  14. MichaelRS

    Good Lord! I really have to stop trying to post semi-long stuff here from my phone.

    I just read my post above, from November 15th, and, based on it, I wouldn’t blame anybody else who read it from thinking I didn’t have any more going on upstairs than the main character in the movie Sling Blade.

    Sorry y’all had to try to sift through that. I just hope you were able to read around all the grammar errors and typos. I thought I had proof read it effectively before posting, but, obviously, I missed a lot on my phone’s smaller screen.
    Maybe later I’ll just rewrite it, so looks more like the Queen’s English, and ask the moderator to delete the original junk.

  15. Terrance

    I have a few questions maybe hopefully somebody could answer. The COR says you need to have done PC 1203.4 first, however, according to this code, it only applies if the person got probation. The person in the court case had prison time and parole, so how was he able to get the PC 1203.4 done?

    Also, I had prison time and am currently on parole for 288(a). Will I be able to apply for the COR in the future?

    • Quint

      @Terrance:

      Not a lawyer, but 288’s can’t get a COR. Somebody jump in if I’m wrong.

      • rs

        Quint, that’s what this whole article is about. A court ruled that it is indeed allowed to APPLY for a COR. No one is guaranteed the granting of one, but this ruling allows those convicted of PC 288(a) to at least have the opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation by applying.

  16. curiouser

    I’m probably losing my mind here (God knows, I’m about due to), but after using the link to the Nov. 10 2015 decision, it certainly seems like this original post is based on the April 25, 2014 Fourth Circuit decision in Tirey II, prior to the enactment of AB 1438. The decision on Nov. 10, 2015 indicates a unanimous three-judge decision that states in view of the passage of AB1438, persons convicted of both, 288.7 AND 288(a) PC are ineligible for Certificates of Rehabilitation. Judge Thompson is included as concurring.

    Am I losing it?

    • Timmr

      That’s what it sounds like to me: you complain to the court that you are not allowed to get something that someone who did something similar to what you did is able to get. The court concurs. Then the legislature takes that thing away from the other guy and now you both get nothing, according to the court. Check.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Curiouser is correct. The final court decision in this case eliminated the eligibility of many registrants, rather than expanded it. The information in this “article” is erroneous as it is based upon a prior decision. The foundation of this error is a mistake made by the court in linking an old decision (2014) to its announcement that a new decision (2015) had been reached. We apologize for any problems that may have resulted from this matter.

      • G4Change

        I read this decision about 3 times and thought the same thing that Curiouser was thinking. I figured that I wasn’t understanding what I read since I’m not a lawyer. Thank you for clarifying this, Janice. What an unfortunate outcome. I’m not personally able to get a CoR because I don’t live in CA, but it is always nice to see good things for anyone – even if not myself.
        More reason to fight for a tiered registry with allowance for removal like so many states have.

  17. wb

    SO am I eligible for a certificate of rehab , 1989 no contest plea on a 288[a] no force no violence,,me 18 victim 13???? NO OTHER CONVICTION SINCE THEN

    • NPS

      YES. But only if you were granted probation AND subsequently granted a 1203.4. If you did state prison and parole, you are not eligible.

    • Timmr

      “no force no violence”. 288(a) lewd acts with a child under 14, is considered a violent crime now. I don’t think it was ten years ago, but that is my guess why they don’t allow a COR for it. Read David Kennerly’s comments in the SNL skit post about the change in the definition of violent as applied to sex crimes.
      Interesting concept, though, that someone who once committed a “violent” act are incapable of being rehabilitated. Would that thinking then apply to those who go fight in wars?
      Denial of a COR is nothing but more punishment, it is not a recognition that you can’t redeem certain offenders, because that is disproved by the statistically low re-offense rate of sex offenders, even so called “violent” ones.

  18. mike r

    Can anyone tell me if you can get relief if you were convicted of (664/288a attempt) (288.2b distributing harmful material over the internet) and (647.6child molestation) all this from a single internet incident back in 2004 I did 2 1/2 years in prison There was never no nude photos no sex talk hardly at all and never any physical contact

    • NPS

      Mike R.
      If you did state prison for a sex offense (regardless of the code), you are NOT eligible.

      You can only have been granted probation for the offense and granted a 1203.4 for you to be eligible for a CoR. This fact is usually emphasized on all CoR packets.

      You are not eligible if convicted of PC
      • 286(c)
      • any section of 288
      • 288a(c)
      • 288.5
      • 289(j)

      • j

        This law is enforced retroactively. The state ought to issue a statement that certain individuals qualify for the parameters of rehabilitation.

        The legal fight here would be to challenge the retroactive implementation and argue that a law cannot remove the status of being rehabilitated and should
        let each case be brought according to the law at the time of sentencing.

        That would just make too much sense.

  19. mike r

    yeah seems a little unequal simply because you did prison time compared to county or probation.

    • NPS

      I totally agree with you, but from the eyes of the law (which has a severe bout of cataracts) probation means that the accused accepted responsibility of their actions and pled out. Whereas someone who forces a trial and is thus convicted by his/her peers isn’t really admitting guilt. So it’s “I admit I’m guilty” vs. “we find you guilty”. That’s all the courts want. They want to hear you say, “I’m sorry for what I’ve done and I’m truly remorseful.” Probation granted. That is what they consider a step toward rehabilitation. Our “justice” system is a total joke.

      • Timmr

        The COR is not about rehabilitation. If so, prison would count as a rehabilitative measure. Sure prison may mean you did not accept guilt, but people go to prison even after confessing to a crime, and people who have admitted guilt and have had a suspended sentence are denied applying for a COR.
        It is ridiculous, and as Harry deftly pointed out above in a clever bit of satire, perfectly meaningless.

  20. KangaroOCourt

    Some go to a supposed to be guaranteed fair open Constitutional court trial to defend oneself to their innocence and challenge charge…(no such thing in california and oc currently under scope of misconduct corrupted withholding evidence)
    Pleading guilty to lesser charges is a BIG difference than your trial charge.
    Plead guilty to lesser charge can get one NOT in registry.
    Over 95% plead guilty to lesser charge than trial charge and probably 98 % registered plead guilty nps …
    Your comment they ‘admitted’ is a deceptive and a fraud…If truly what you say then admit guilty to charge facing at a trial… More likely than not…
    were lesser charge and may not even come close in description to original trial charge. Maybe nps you could really stand on what you say and put that in the registry what charge facing to trial..Than the lessor charge they pled guilty too..let’s actually see what they admitted too .
    Some will go to trial because they are innocent and not take a lesser charge (nonregistered)… That’s Fact.

    • NPS

      My response was pretty clear that it’s a metaphorical analysis of what I believe the court system is; or at least how it is in OC because that’s my only experience. And it’s pretty clear that you completely misinterpreted what I wrote. Where did I say “they admitted” in those precise words? I think you completely missed my point. What I said is how the justice system sees it; not what it truly is or should be. It’s called an opinion and how I observe the way the “justice system” works. Don’t take it as fact.

      But if you want to hear facts…OC did not allow me to plea to lesser charges. The 3 charges I pled to were the trial charges. There was no bargaining with the deputy DA. They had ZERO evidence of any of the charges, but after running my name through the mud via media outlets, I highly doubted I would have a fair and impartial jury, so I pled guilty because that was what my lawyer advised me to do; he stated it would be easier to be granted a 17b and 1203.4 in the future as it shows I’m already taking my own initiative to rehabilitate myself. THAT is what courts want to see. All my charges were non-registrable offenses, but under 290.006, a judge (in my case Thomas Goethals) can use his discretion to decide that I should register for life. As long as they state on record why. It was NEVER stated on record. Judge Goethals did it because he could.

      After serving my 90 days, I immediately moved and transferred probation to San Francisco county where they analyzed my case, terminated my probation early, and granted my 17b and 1203.4 Now it’s a matter of waiting out the requisite 10 year period (I have 4.5 years left) before filing the CoR.

  21. KangaroOCourt

    People should be off this registry I say now after ten years period..no other bs..you’ve proven them wrong ..its time for people to be off this listing.
    No offense this or that…people need to be off.
    The difference between offense is plead guilty to lesser offense..
    Difference between someone is registered to not…is plead guilty to lesser offense.
    Put that in your ‘packet’.

  22. MarkWSF

    Can someone please actually clarify what the second sentence of this “CORRECTION” blurb means? ie….. “but instead eliminated eligibility for many individuals to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.”

    What exact types of offenses or individual RCs are no longer eligible for a COR??

    CORRECTION: The information in the article below is based upon a court document from 2014 that was mistakenly identified as a 2015 appellate court decision. Regrettably, this year’s decision did not expand eligibility, but instead eliminated eligibility for many individuals to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

  23. P, Dixon

    Is there any chance for a Certificate of Rehabilitation for my son who had sex with a 16-year-old, she said she was 18 and he was 21 one. This is in New York state. He had a felony and he took a plea was gave him a misdemeanor/misconduct. His lawyer once told me that because he took the plea he can never come back for anything. There was no violence, there was liquor. He went to county jail for 4 months he was on probation for 6 years he went to sex offense classes and finally we went to the probation officer and his supervisor and he was allowed to take his GPS off and then the probation officer and my son’s lawyer went to the sentencing judge and they took him off probation. He is a level one offender. He was never in trouble before and hasn’t been in trouble since. He is working. He got 20 years on the registry he has been on 4.5 years. I really don’t have a real understanding of this Certificate of Rehab. is, any help I can get would be so appreciated.

  24. Chance Oberstein

    Just a note to clear up some confusion about this article. First of all, if Tirey was affirmed, it would have made those convicted of PC 288 subsection (a) eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, this was not the case. For a bright shiny moment in time we all thought the court did the right thing but it was only a technical glitch. The announcement of the decision was linked to a prior opinion. Later the link was updated with the actual opinion. So to be clear, eligibility for a certificate of rehabilitation was not expanded or contracted, it just remains the same.

    Also, there is a common misconception that prison time negates eligibility for a certificate of rehabilitation. It does not. Under PC 4852.01 (b), those who were confined in state prison are also eligible pursuant to other provisions of the code.

    I hope this note is helpful.

    Chance X. Oberstein

    • NPS

      Thank you for the clarification particularly with the part about prison. However, all certificate of rehabilitation packets that I’ve seen from various counties throughout California state that if convicted of a 290 offense and placed on probation, then you are eligible. Here is an example:
      http://www.occourts.org/forms/local/l799.pdf
      See the final paragraph on page 2, Section 1 – Are you Eligible?

  25. TRUMP 4 PREZ

    I went to prison for getting it on with two 16 year olds in 2000 (at the same time). I live with both women now (both 31 y.o.) in a hot polygamous relationship of near 10 years now. We sleep on a King bed and they please me every night because they know I paid a high price to have them both. I tried to get one of them certificates but that damn judge said my crimes can’t get it. Now, I think there should be a law where if us sex offenders have our testicles surgically removed, we can be granted a certificate and be taken out as 290 scum. I paid my dues. If I’m willing to get my nuts chopped, then they damn well should take me off this registry!! I think Donald Trump will fix this mess.

  26. Harry

    Donald hate SOs. No help there.

  27. SS

    It mentioned the article is old…So finally can someone with 288a get rehab eligibility or not?!!!!

    • NPS

      YES you are eligible! As long as it’s not 288a(c).
      However, if you meant 288(a), then that is a definitive no.

    • curiouser

      They cannot.

      • NPS

        Curiouser, I think you’re confusing 288a with 288(a). They are both completely different charges.

        People convicted of a 288a (oral copulation) CAN apply for a CoR unless it’s subsection (c).

        People convicted of any section of 288(a) (lewd behavior with someone 13 and under) CANNOT apply for a CoR.

        To the original poster, do you mean 288a or 288(a)?

        • curiouser

          You’re right. I didn’t look for the parens. my bad

        • SS

          I don’t know what is different between 288a or 288(a)?! Both looks the same for me… I actually ask for my friend. He trapped for a TV show. It was a fake chat … He is a very good person, no any other record. As I know him very well I am so sorry for what happen to him…he lost everything…it is very unfair… can he apply for rehab?any help or hope for him?

        • SS

          It is 288(A) &he did not have prison.

        • NPS

          Parentheses make a HUGE difference. Again, as I stated above, 288a is oral copulation. 288(a) is lewd conduct with someone 13 years old and under.

          Unfortunately, for your friend with 288(a), he CANNOT get a CoR.

          Just as an FYI, when speaking, when referring to 288(a), you must say, “288 subsection a”

        • SS

          I cannot understand why they gave him 288(A). It was an internet chat. No real person was involved. All chat was fake and entrapment…anyway thank you so much for your response. I am wondering if there is any hope or possibility of changes for people convicted of 288(A)?

        • noname

          What about a 288.4(b)it was also a internet sting, no victim, no mention of anything sexual, it was going to or arranging a meeting?

        • NPS

          Noname,

          I have posted several times on this thread the codes that make you ineligible for a CoR, but since many people don’t like to scroll up, here they are again, if you were convicted of any of the following: PC 286(c), any section of 288, 288a(c), 288.5, or 289(j) YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE.

          If you DON’T see your charge among that list, then you ARE eligible.

          So it looks like you are eligible.

        • michele4

          Ok my code is 261.5d, but i did 2 years prison. Am i eligible? I dont see my code on your list

        • NPS

          michele4,

          Also answered several times on this forum. (Come on people. All the answers are on this thread. You just need to scroll through and read the posts.) But I’ll repost that link yet again.
          http://www.occourts.org/forms/local/l799.pdf
          See the final paragraph on page 2, Section 1 – Are you Eligible?

          For a sex offense, it clearly states that if you were granted PROBATION, then you are eligible. If you did state parole, no, you are not eligible.

          So it looks like you are not eligible.

  28. David H

    ok here’s my dollar ($$) saving question: I plan to marry a foreign national. I understand that regardless of where I’m from, CA. in this case, AWA applies in that i must prove beyond a reasonable doubt I’m not a risk to my future wife, at this point.

    Now there seems to me to be a couple, maybe more, hurdles I could clean up at one time.

    1) to whatever i must do to be rehabiltated to get off registry

    2) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I am not a risk certainly requires an evaluation??

    Then probably 🙁 million dollar question is can I accomplish both at the same time???

    so to attorneys with a for hire availability, please advise and contact; also anecdotal comments welcome!!

    • Timmr

      Hell’s bells, you are marrying your wife, not the State. She has the last word in this. I can’t believe this country.

    • Good Luck

      First off, did you know that John Walsh, the father of Adam who pushed through the AWA screwed a 16 year old when he was in his 20s? Yup, the father of the AWA act should be a sex offender.

      Qualifying for a green card at the moment is a near impossible task. Personally, I had a possession of CP case where all photos were of teenagers (15+) posing on a major, legal, US based website. There was no attempt to contact anyone underage, pay or trade for anything.

      I had 2 shirks interrogate me and wrote glowing reports. I passed a polygraph (bull shit, but US loves them). I had a glowing letter from the pastor at a mega-church. I had affidavits in support of me from many family members, wife, friends, volunteer organizations. I completed probation with no problems and have had no problems ever since. My wife had no children.

      Yet they determined I didn’t meet the burden. They basically responded that “you didn’t prove NO risk”. It’s obviously an impossible task to prove that. People were getting approved up until a couple years ago, but now you apply, wait a year to get your “notice of intent to deny”, then wait 2 – 4 more years for the official denial. There are couple of rulings my lawyer and I are waiting on and then we will file in Federal Court.

      Is your wife-to-be legally with you in the US? If so, filing the Adjustment of Status will grant her legal status (for work as well) that remains until all appeals are exhausted, so you can still be together for years. If she isn’t, consider getting her to the US on a student visa or something if you can afford it, then get married once she’s in the country, then file.

      Once you are married you may also gain access to the immigration system of her country, as many countries respect family more than the US does.

      Good Luck!

      • David H

        thank you GL; it’s as i feared!

      • David H

        Gl: ” Yet they determined I didn’t meet the burden. They basically responded that “you didn’t prove NO risk”. It’s obviously an impossible task to prove that. People were getting approved up until a couple years ago, but now you apply, wait a year to get your “notice of intent to deny”, then wait 2 – 4 more years for the official denial. There are couple of rulings my lawyer and I are waiting on and then we will file in Federal Court.”

        my fiance is a national of the Philippines and still resides there–where in and of itself it’s difficult to immigrate here, and then now this.

        may I ask the country of origin your wife is? also, I got a couple of referrals from here for an immigration attorney: Allan loby and Evita Tolu were you using either of them? I;m asking just to get your opinion of either

  29. anonymously

    Good Luck lamented “First off, did you know that John Walsh, the father of Adam who pushed through the AWA screwed a 16 year old when he was in his 20s? Yup, the father of the AWA act should be a sex offender.”

    Not only that, but so should fellow hypocrite Mark Foley, author of SORNA/AWA.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.