The stage is set. The Governor has signed the tiered registry bill into law, a law that opens a wide gap in the dam of California’s “Lifetime Registry for All”. A dam that was in place for 70 years. It is now our job to widen that gap.
The Tiered Registry will take effect in January 2021, about 3 ½ years from now. While it is truly unfortunate that those who will benefit from the “new” tiered registry will have to wait so long, the lengthy gestation period for the “new” tiered registry could provide us with opportunities to address that registry through both legislation and litigation.
First, legislation could and should be pursued during the next legislative session (2019-2020) which improves the tiered registry by broadening its benefits, especially to those convicted of non-production child pornography (CP) offenses. For there is no logical reason for, and no empirical evidence to support, the “new” tiered registry’s requirement for people convicted of non-production offenses to register for the rest of their lives.
There are additional problems with the “new” tiered registry that also need to be corrected such as the addition of people to the state’s Megan’s Law website due to a “high” score on the Static-99R at the time of their release. The Static-99R is a controversial testing instrument that produces flawed results such as scoring all gay men under the age of 25 as high risk. And even if the results of that testing instrument were considered valid, a score that is 10 years old or older is irrelevant because it does not reflect the results of post-conviction rehabilitation.
In addition, the “new” tiered registry requires a judge, when considering whether to approve a person’s petition for removal of the registry, to consider both pre- and post-conviction factors that are sure to result in prejudice against the petitioner. For example, the judge must consider pre-conviction factors such as whether the victim was a stranger and post-conviction factors such as noncriminal behavior. As written, this could mean that a judge must consider a ticket for jay walking and/or the late return of books to the public library. These factors must be modified or removed.
Second, litigation could and should be pursued to challenge the need for, and value of, a public registry in California. There are Constitutional issues, recent court decisions and empirical evidence to support such a challenge.
For example, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution could be the basis for a challenge to why those convicted of a non-contact, non-violent offense such as possession of CP should be required to register for a lifetime similar to those convicted of multiple violent contact offenses against multiple children.
Another example is the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits governments from retroactively applying new laws that punish. There is a growing number of court decisions, including Does v. Snyder in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognize that the requirement to register as well as its collateral consequences are punishment and therefore cannot be applied to individuals convicted decades ago.
Finally, there is empirical evidence to support the fact that public registries do not increase public safety. In fact, there is even evidence that public registries may decrease public safety. There is also empirical evidence to support the fact that the rate of re-offense for those convicted of a sex offense is very low especially when they have lived outside of jail or prison for 17 years or more without re-offending.
The stage is set. There is much to do. Please join us by Standing Up – Showing Up- Speaking Up at monthly meetings, annual conferences, legislative hearings and more.
— by Janice Bellucci
I have to chime in here……..That was so not right USA !!! I thought you were going to be making a sarcastic joke when I started to read your post against detained, and while continuing to read I realized that you were actually serious….. My god is right,, Who in the hellllllllll do you think you are to be calling out anyone and portraying yourself, once again, as some type of superior and all knowing………You are no better then anyone else on here, and your opinion does not supersede or lessen anyone else”s opinions. All you ever do is talk about you and your case and what kind of relief you’re going to get , and what will this or that do for you………It’s despicable and a downright disgrace that you continue to rant and rave about other peoples comments, and personally attack them for their opinions……….And you talk about getting up and doing something like donating to others to help them fight “YOUR” fight. Why don’t you stand up and do something instead of depending on others to do for you, and then try to disparage others that are not getting the handout that you are going to get…………..Go file your own petition and then come back and let us know that you have actually done something yourself instead of waiting for others to fight your fight, and taking what you can get from the overlords………..Disgraceful………….
Thanks Mike! Aka disgraceful. Disgraceful is not appreciating what’s been accomplished within the past years! (Parks/beaches etc). Now, we pass a bill that will effectively provide an outlet for a high percentage of registrants (unless you have multiple arrests/high static 99 score/or you never had your charges reduced/expunged) to get removed from the registry, yet you still complain. This bill has been attempted now for years! It’s literally a miracle. Now, it’s not perfect, but time is on your side unless you want to complain instead? Although, it really doesn’t matter what you think! The most important thing is that a high percentage of registrants appreciate the hard work that’s been taken to accomplish the impossible! I don’t think Janice owes anyone anything. So, the next time you want to complain, think about why you are required to register and what are you capable of contributing? Your embarrassing! You guys can respond, but your not worth my time! I’m to busy to hear from those lucky enough to visit beaches and parks! Good luck! 😊😉
Once again you seem to think you know what others appreciate, and and are showing your true ignorance of what is in this bill. High percentage of registrants are going to have an outlet off?????Uh, read the bill…..I don’t know where you get your stats from but I assure they are far from correct. I never said I didn’t appreciate Janice and all her hard work, but I am also not going to sit around and see wrongs occurring and not speak my mind. I am also not going to sit around and do nothing and expect others to fight my fight. I have worked for over two years to get my motion in front of a judge and it will be heard very shortly. Janices team is just now starting to come around to the realization that incremental was fine for awhile there, but it is ripe fr a real and complete take down of the registry like I have been fighting for for years now………….I am extremely stoked that her team is considering, finally, to attack the registry at its core, thats really encouraging, but for me it does not matter because my case will be heard well before anyone else in this state. And by the way, you might want to read that bill a little closer, I don’t see anything that says reduced or expunged charges will get you into a lower tier….From what you have said, and from common sense you may well be in tier three since you had a original felony offense for battery with a sexual component enough that it got you on the registry very well may put you right in that tier three along with most of the people on the registry………I would dig into that more if I was you, and just wouldn’t take it for granted yet that you are going to put in a tier that you think you will…….Felony battery with a sexual component sure seems like a tier three offense to me, whether expunged, reduced or even dismissed I don’t believe it even matters…….I could be wrong but I don’t think I am………..
What’s this “we” stuff ??? “we”passed a bill /???There’s no “we” about it, you had absolutely nothing to do with that bill passing. Like I said, you better read up on f your reduction and subsequent expunged offense is going to benefit you in any way when it comes to this bill and what tier you are in………………I bet you will be singing a way different tune if you go into tier three………….
I guess. according to the phone conference. reduction and expunge does matter, even si I bet uou would be singing a different tune if you are placed in tier three, and how unfair is that a person who had a felony contact offense is going to be a lower tier then non contact offenses? Makes no sense and as Janice stated is a huge equal protection issue…
The Static-99R also gives ‘non-contact’ offenders a higher static score than those with a violent offense. Doesn’t make any sense that a non-contact offender should incur a greater Static-99R penalty than a violent one. Look at Question Number 7: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf
Something to think about for those of you who continue to self defeat:
If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.
Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits!
Good luck!
if i was convicted of a 311.11 in October 2012 and given a felony conviction first offense as a wobbler will getting my conviction changed to a misdemeanor allow me into tier 1 when the new law takes place. I understood that convictions that happened after January 2014 were all sentenced as felonies.
thank you
Whoa.. back up…Patsy, whats this about federal felonies not on the list? What exactly are you refering to?
Guys, you can call your local court house and get all of this info! As noted, there are certain sex offenses (even a wobbler) that can’t be reduced to a misdemeanor! The law reduced the scope of offenses that could (sexually related) be reduced! NPS isn’t a lawyer!
Go onto this website/it’s free. You can call and have your answer in minutes or submit a request for information. Read the fine print at the bottom/I also recall reading the scope was reduced! Good luck!!
https://www.shouselaw.com/reducing-felony-to-misdmeanor.html
Here are the offenses you can’t reduce etc:
3. Can I Expunge My Sex Offender Status or Obtain Relief From My Duty to Register as a Sex Offender?
Like most other questions relating to Penal Code 290 registration as a sex offender, this answer depends on the exact offense of which you were convicted. There are actually a few options for clearing your sex offender status.
The first option is to have your case dismissed after you successfully complete your probation. This process is known as expungement and is regulated by Penal Code 1203.4 California expungement law. The benefit of this option is that it takes the charge and conviction off your criminal record. The downside is that you must still register as a California sex offender.31
This option is not available if you were convicted of
Penal Code 286 (c) sodomy with a child,
Penal Code 288(c) lewd acts with a child under 15 whom you are at least 10 years older than
Penal Code 288(a) oral copulation
Penal Code 288.5 continuous sexual abuse of a child
Penal Code 289(j) sexual penetration with a person under 14 whom you are at least 10 years older than
Penal Code 261.5(d) statutory rape with a minor under 16 when charged as a felony.32
Certificate of rehabilitation
The second option for clearing your sex offender status is to apply for a California certificate of rehabilitation. Unlike an expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation relieves your duty to register under Penal Code 290s Sex Offender Registration Act.33
You may apply for a California certificate of rehabilitation seven to ten years following your release from custody or from parole or probation (whichever is sooner)34 if you meet the following requirements:
the court expunged your case,
you have not been incarcerated since your case was dismissed,
you are not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and
you can prove that you have lived in California for at least five years prior to your application.35
Much like a California expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation is not available if you were convicted of the offenses listed above in the expungement section…the exception being oral copulation.36
Should I do it under my old county or new county? They are only 40 mins away from each other.
Man sure seems like a equal process claim that a person with they exact same charges can get a reduction while a person that goes to prison with those charges cannot….Seems kind of arbitrary as well.
Is attempted 288(a) a possible wobbler? If so can I go back to original judge or to the original DA?
Pro per, NPS, another warrior willing to fight his/her own battle and not wait for someone else to do it for them, or just take this crap laying down, Pro per your a….into the court clerk and file a motion for injunctive and declaratory relief (petition for removal) right now NPS, don’t wait for them to tell you when or under what conditions you can access the courts….My opinion…..Everyone can do it….All you need is a little knowledge and some ballllls and there you go…
We need one in state court too, I just don’t have the time at the moment with college and calculus, this is all a new way of life for me. I’ve always been a hands on working man, to switch to working my mind instead isn’t easy….
Wow, please change your attitude NPS! It wasn’t OC’s fault you where arrested? People typically don’t get arrested for the 1st crime they committed/including myself. Bad attitude.
As noted, your case (if a Felony conviction) is only a wobbler if you did any time in county jail rather than prison. Guys, it’s real easy to search this online!
Please read below:
Menu
Shouse California Law Group
24/7 Help:
Legal definition of a “Wobbler” in California law
California law defines a “wobbler” as an offense that prosecutors can elect to file as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on
the specific facts of the case, and
the defendant’s criminal history.1
If the facts of your case are severe — and/or you have a criminal history that justifies a harsh punishment — prosecutors will likely charge you with a felony. Conversely, if this is your first offense — and/or there are mitigating facts that can excuse or reduce some of your criminal culpability — prosecutors may be more likely to charge you with a misdemeanor.
There are a wide variety of California offenses that qualify as wobblers. Some examples include (but are not limited to):
Penal Code 459 PC California’s burglary law,2
Penal Code 245(a)(1) PC California’s “assault with a deadly weapon” (ADW) law,3
Penal Code 273.5 PC California’s spousal battery law,4
many California sex crimes (including Penal Code 243.4 PC sexual battery5 and Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a minor6), and
many California fraud charges.7
Why classification as a wobbler is important
There are certain rights and privileges that are revoked when you are convicted of a felony. As long as your offense remains a misdemeanor, you will preserve some of these rights (such as the right to own or possess firearms under Penal Code 29800 PC California’s felon with a firearm law).8
And, in the unfortunate event, you are charged with a wobbler felony, you can later petition the court to have your felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. This relief isn’t available for “straight” felonies.that is, felonies that are not classified as wobblers. For more information on the benefits of felony reductions, please review our article on Reducing Felony Convictions to Misdemeanors.
The bottom line is that if you’ve been charged with a wobbler, our team of experienced California criminal defense attorneys9 know the most effective arguments for convicting prosecutors and judges to minimize your potential penalties by charging you with a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
Call us for help.
Img call for help
If you or loved one is charged with a wobbler and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can provide a free consultation in office or by phone. We have local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and throughout California.
In Nevada some crimes may be either a felony or a gross misdemeanor. Learn more about wobblers in Nevada.
Legal References:
1California Penal Code 17 PC — Classification of offenses. (“(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, by imprisonment in the state prison or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail [which is, by definition, a wobbler], it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances: (1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison. (2) When the court, upon committing the defendant to the Youth Authority, designates the offense to be a misdemeanor. (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor. (4) When the prosecuting attorney files in a court having jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses a complaint specifying that the offense is a misdemeanor, unless the defendant at the time of his or her arraignment or plea objects to the offense being made a misdemeanor, in which event the complaint shall be amended to charge the felony and the case shall proceed on the felony complaint. (5) When, at or before the preliminary examination or prior to filing an order pursuant to Section 872, the magistrate determines that the offense is a misdemeanor, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint.”)
2Penal Code 459 PC California’s burglary law. (“Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store.with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”)
See also Penal Code 461 PC — Punishment. (“Burglary is punishable as follows: (a) Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years. (b) Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.”)
3Penal Code 245(a)(1) PC California’s “assault with a deadly weapon” (ADW) law. (“(a)(1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.”)
4Penal Code 273.5 PC California’s spousal battery law. (“(a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.”)
5Penal Code 243.4 PC sexual battery (one of California’s sex crimes). (“(a) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000).”)
6Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a minor. (“(c)(1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.”)
7Most California fraud charges, including forgery, embezzlement, and elder abuse are wobblers.
8Penal Code 29800 PC California’s felon with a firearm law. (“(“(a)(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (2) Any person who has two or more convictions for violating paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 417 and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who has been convicted of a felony or of an offense enumerated in Section 12001.6, when that conviction results from certification by the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult in an adult court under Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Section 71, 76, 136.1, 136.5, or 140, subdivision (d) of Section 148, Section 171b, 171c, 171d, 186.28, 240, 241, 243, 243.4, 244.5, 245, 245.5, 246.3, 247, 273.5, 273.6, 417, 417.6, 422, 626.9, 646.9, 12023, or 12024, subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 26100, Section 12040, subdivision (b) of Section 12072, subdivision (a) of former Section 12100, Section 12220, 12320, or 12590, or Section 8100, 8101, or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any firearm-related offense pursuant to Sections 871.5 and 1001.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of the conduct punished in paragraph (3) of subdivision (g) of Section 12072, and who, within 10 years of the conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.”)
USA, your wayout. you first state something intelligent,
If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.
Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty.
dont agree with this though..
Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy youself.
A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits!
Then you go acting like you know more then NPS and you don’t even know the difference from a 288(a) and a 288a, or that they are different. Just saying…..
NPS/MikeR, do everyone a favor and buzz off! I keep reading, I I I I? You must hold yourself in high self esteem! We don’t want you to represent us and your clearly not qualified to represent anyone or give legal advice. If anything you stated was valid, every attorney in Ca would have done it! Good luck and move on! Remember, your too busy 😈
In sorry, Janice, but you clearly have failed to listen. And it is very scary that you still do not understand. You are very wrong that there has been a LIFETIME registry with no way out for 70 years. That is completely false. Actually, that has only been the case since the mid-1990s, when the previous ways out were eliminated by the Legislature.
Until 1981 for felons, and the earlier side of the 1990s for misdemeanants, anyone who got their record expunged via 1203.4 could stop registering immediately, no notice to the stare needed, no application, you have 1203.4, you no longer were subject to the registration law — the state already knew that.
Also, for those not eligible for 1203.4, most of them could stop registering by getting a COR, and they could get that in a much fewer number of years than it is not available. And it was not so impossible to get as it snow. That COR standard has now been raised to getting the pardon — anyone who was relieved by getting the COR also had to resume registration when the last was changed and made retroactive.
Lifetime registry with no way out only started in the mid 1990s when California eliminated those ways out.
And with those changes in the law, and later it being made clear they were retroactive, all those people who had earned relief and were relieved of registration were required to start registering again — but how were they to know? I expect many of them are the more than 16,000 the state says are failing to register, they don’t even realize they lost their relief! They will find out the hard way.
We have done nothing to restore that relief, we at least should have demanded that any relief previously earned would be retroactively restored with no further action needed!
Even under this tier bill, those people could be forced to start registering again, and for potentially nine or more years (if they got, say, one year of probation) before they can even ask politely to be relieved, but maybe find they get rejected for that relief. Their failure to register would prevent them from getting any relief offered to those whose offenses that are more than 30 years old — and any number of other people with offenses that old might get rejected because of a second offense, maybe a year or two after their first, event that second one was maybe 50 years ago — that is what this bill’s language says, no matter what someone misrepresented it as saying. This bill says one offense, no repeat, it doesn’t matter if the repeat was 50 years ago, and even expunged. This bill does not say the last offense. It also says they have to be currently registering, and in California, or that clause does not apply.
That 1203.4 relief and COR relief for more serious offenses was the previous way — and much better way than this tier garbage — to stop registering. It was exponentially better than these fake tiers — just a COR pretending to be a tier — we have, that you still cheerlead wrongly. It is that cheerleading and failure to assert anything else as an option that left us with this horrible tier bill that will only serve to build a powerful enemy — the state sex offender board that will now have huge hiring for this bill — that will prevent us from ever stopping this abomination of registration. Gee, thanks a lot.
If I wanted to block ever ending or all but eliminating this registration horror, I could not have done better than this bill.
Even the old system was unacceptable, it was fought vehemently for decades, event the state Supreme Court said it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for at least some of the lesser offenses (the more recent right wing court overturned that decision). But this group did not even mention the possibly of reverting to that, a tried an true system that the legislature’s and prosecutors knew would work for their purposes, tested for decades. Few, if any, of the legislators in office now have the slightest idea of the old system, have no idea of options other than the garbage that was presented to them.
Our advocacy — I should say cheerleading — got us nothing, we were not even respected enough to be included an any discussions! The ACLU, which has abandoned us for decades, was in them, and did what they routinely do nowadays, make a compromise that is garbage, and refuse to fight further, refuse to actually lead. Being spellbound by an ACLU reputation of old that is no longer applicable is not leadership. How the hell did the ACLU get status to represent us after doing nothing for us for decades?! Gee, I had been personally told by the ACLU that they have no interest in this issue — they had no problem with registration, they think it is fine. And what they advocated here shows that.
Too funny
Wow! Talk about being self absorbed! Anonymous, your self righteous. You don’t speak for me or us! Your obviously a repeat offender. Your a very disturbing person. Why don’t you go to law school, start a non profit, work for peanuts and help those who don’t appreciate you! OMG
Get out of here!
Amazing all bickering and competing as to who’s charge is worst than others. I don’t believe where all innocent. Does any one think any differently? At current I
am today’s tier 3. My case was a 288(a), probation and probation handled the reduction and expunging automatically back in 1994. Back in 2006 I went to the PD’s office and used their Paralegal to have what had already taken place in1994. I didn’t even know all that was done but was good as many misleading entries needed to be corrected in the record. Instead of quoting the PC looking for legal advice to find your way out. Use the PD’s paralegal staff to do the paperwork for you to see what you can get if you can’t afford a lawyer. At current the stage is set for me to be removed in 3 years, at current. I feel that I will not have any problems with my petition but will deal with it then. I can see light at the end of the tunnel which is getting brighter each day. I know it’s a disappointment for the current non disclosed people. I was non disclosed at one time but that was taken away and it freaked out.
Anonymous, you’re in another world! That world doesn’t exist. For now on, remain anonymous. Your comments are poorly thought out!
Here are my two biggest complaints with regard to the Static 99R:
1) Why is it only the Static 99R score at time of release that is controlling to whether someone be placed in Tier III? At least with the previous versions of the tiered bill, the wording was concerned with “current” Static score, which at least permitted for some possible adjustment. To fix a ridgid “static” score at time of release, and rely on it for more than a year or two, is outlandishly ridiculous given the power of the Static 99R to raise people from Tier I [or II] to III.
2) Another good point is IF the Static 99R was really infalluable as it’s being claimed, why are people who score negative and low figures even required to register in the first place??
It all doesn’t add up. Something tells me that the Static 99R is really junk. At least from the reading I’ve done, it sure seems like the state, casomb, and saratso are grossly misusing the Static 99R.