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


ACSOL Phone Meeting Alert for March 12: CA Tiered Registry

ACSOL will conduct a review of the California Tiered Registry during a phone conference call on Monday, March 12 at 5 p.m. (Pacific).

The review will include attorneys Eliza Hersh, a leading legal advocate and educator in the movement for criminal justice reform, as well as ACSOL President Chance Oberstein and ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

The conference call will include a discussion of opportunities for some registrants to be removed from the registry prior to implementation of the Tiered Registry through certificates of rehabilitation as well as the reduction of some offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.

The conference call will also include a discussion of how to prepare for the Tiered Registry’s implementation in 2021.

To join the conference, call the following:

Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055
Conference Code: 983459

To ask a question, press “5,” followed by “*”.
(You can let the moderator know that you wish to ask a question by pressing 5* on your phone (i.e., the “5”, then the “*”). The conference call system should tell you that your virtual “hand” is raised, and will note this on the moderator’s switchboard. If you press 5* a second time, your hand will be lowered, and the moderator will no longer see that you wish to ask a question. Pressing 5* a third time will raise your hand again, and so on. Unfortunately, the switchboard does not indicate the order in which callers press 5*, so please be patient while waiting to ask a question.)

This will be recorded and available on our website

Listen to this Conference Call

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

We always hear “Certificate of Rehabilitation” and not “Expungement”. If you have an Expungement, you can not get a Certificate of Rehabilitation!!! Do we that no longer have a record via 1203.4 just fall through the cracks or are we considered equal to the Certificate?

YES YOU CAN get a CoR after expungement. I don’t know where you got your information, but according to the CoR instruction packet, it specifically states, and I quote verbatim, “Defendants convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor sex offense specified in Pen. Code § 290, and who were granted probation, must obtain relief pursuant to Pen. Code § 1203.4 before a Certificate of Rehabilitation may be granted.”

NPS,, it seems you know a bit or two regarding COR as I know very little. What r the qualifications in obtaining a COR? Last year I had my 1994 index offense reduced/dismissed however(unfortunately) in 2009 I had a felony drug charge. Now please folks don’t go ragging on me about the drug offense, my judgement was terribly clouded by grief due to the loss of a child. Next year would mark 10 years offense free. Any guidance or enlightenment would greatly be appreciated. Thanks

Here is what I read from the packet…
You are eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation if you:

were convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor sex offense specified in Penal Code section
290 that was dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4; and
• have been discharged from custody, parole, or probation; and
• have not been incarcerated in any penal institution, jail, or agency since release;
• are not on probation for the commission of any other felony; and
• have resided for five years in California immediately prior to filing the petition.

My understanding is that an applicant cannot have any another conviction. However, the second bullet point is a bit confusing. If you didn’t serve time, would an applicant be eligible? Or does probation count as an “agency”. That would be a question for an attorney to answer. Another question would be if another 10 years past from an additional conviction, as in your case, could you be eligible. Again, it’s my understanding that you can’t have any convictions because the packet doesn’t specify the amount of years as shown in the list above. This something you would also need to address with an attorney.

CoR in itself does NOT relieve you from registering. It’s applying your granted CoR to 290.5 that does. That is until 290.5 is entirely replaced by the new tiered registry. So you can potentially get a CoR but would still need to register if you don’t meet the criteria the current 290.5. I have no idea if the current 290.5 will be grandfathered in for those convicted prior to the tiered registry similar to how 311.11 was grandfathered in for 1203.4 before the current change of the law that makes 311.11 no longer eligible for expungement.

CORRECT NPS. I was (plead) to a Felony PC 243.4 a. Summary Probation. I had the charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to PC 17 B and eventually expunged pursuant to PC 1203.4. After (I rescheduled one of my court dates when fighting the case) I plead, I was stopped ( I was released on OR after my plea and allowed to surrender myself weeks after) and the officer informed me I had a warrant?

I was hauled down to the station and they magically found out it was false. Please note that prior to any of this, I have had no legal issues. So, it wasn’t a great thing.

Anyways, when I was trying to obtain my reduction pursuant to 17 B, the presiding judge brought this up. He granted the motion, but re instated the probation which eventually dropped off. I later expunged the offense.

Then, I went back to the city (yes, it takes a little research) and did whats called a PC 851.8 (erase a detainment/if you are detained: cuffed/taken to jail, but no charges brought/no court dates/no charges/thats a detainment). IN summary, you submit the PC 858.1 and if granted/should be unless charges where filed, they sign off on it and you where found factually innocent. So, a copy is sent to the FBI and all surrounding Law Enforcement Agencies. In essence, all info is ordered destroyed.

I also filed a COR in OC. The Investigator for the DA’s office was a monster. (original case in LA). They just do things differently in OC/from what I have seen. He came out to my home/late night, questioned neighbors/verified my Education and so on and on. They couldn’t find a thing. When the court date came, he had the victim and (there originally was supposed to be 2-3 victims/that was found to be false) whomever (I only plead to one count) these other people where to court. The DA was nuts. She claimed I had Formal Probation (not true), the women started rushing me and calling me names in the hallway, the DA requested my wife show up? and it was a circus. I can go on and on. It was surreal. Eventually, the Judge stated that he couldn’t find one reason to deny the motion, but it just wasn’t enough? Motion denied! So, I’ve been a bit apprehensive to file another one.

I do suggest getting your charges reduced to a misdemeanor prior to 2021

That’s what I’m worried about come time to (hopefully) petition off the registry. When I was trying to get off early of probation, the DA used my high STATIC-99R score and 1 failed polygraph against me. Also, the “treatment” people from the CASOMB program were telling me all sorts of good things in front of me. But when we got a hold of my probation and “treatment” records, my attorney and I were shocked at the exaggerations and s*** they wrote behind my back. So that’s another thing to be concerned of when petitioning.

I didn’t get early probation . . . and had to stay on probation for the whole period, even though I had no violation/s.

So I know what you mean when you talk about how aggressive/scary the DA’s can be!

I think that the CASOMB “treatment” companies are expected to “tow the line” and somehow rationalize the Static-99R “science,” so the so-called “doctors” in said CASOMB treatment companies feel obligated to exaggerate/embellish the treatment reports so that CDCR or probation are continuously fed propaganda as to the “accuracy” of the Static-99R scam. I, too, share similar fear — as I do not feel that the CASOMB program that I was enrolled in accurately reported my progress to the state. When these CASOMB sham programs label you with a “high” Static-99R score, I feel that they automatically assume the worst… embellish notes and reports, so that they can somehow “prove” that their “science” is true and correct. It’s really troubling.

Of course, we really have no recourse… even *if* the so-called treatment that we were enrolled in were administered by mostly unlicensed interns. And I suspect that said treatment progress will eventually be used against some — or perhaps many — of us come time to “petition” off.

Of course, some with “high” Static-99R scores may never have the opportunity to ever petition off… even if they otherwise fall into the Tier 1 category.

Sorry to hear that. I would imagine this process should be easier than a COR. I’m considered a Tier 1. Tier 1 is required to Register for 10 years. 2021 would be 25 years after my arrest. I think it’s hard to argue if (myself) had only Summary Probation

Static, good points. I’m like 21 years into registration. I’ve never been assessed or given a static 99.

Released: 28
1 conviction
Stranger : female

I think I’m a 3
No arrests/prior legal issues etc.
What exactly does prior sentencing dates mean?

“What exactly does prior sentencing dates mean”….If you have been convicted of anything else BEFORE your sex crime. I also have never been given a static 99. Has anyone looked into paying for one and sending it off to DOJ for them to add? It would be great to have a process for this included in any bill revisions so we don’t have to wait an additional 2 years to get off the registry. Also, in the new static 99- coding rules it mentions deducting 2 points for every 5 years you’ve been crime free and on the registry. I would be able to deduct 4 points.

I believe you’re referring to the part in the Static-99 document that states the “test” should be reevaluated after 2 years (basically two years after your conviction as that’s when its normally administered) and in general ones re-offense status halves for every 5 years you remain offense free with the whole thing basically being null after a max of 17 years (let’s say you were given a max score of 10. In 5 years you’re a 5, then a 2.5, then 1.25, and in another two years you fall to less than 1 from the high of 10). However, its seems like this part of the document is completely ignored by the system and courts. I have not heard of a single case where the Static-99 actually followed this guideline.

The five year reduction isn’t a mere two points, but your score actually ‘halves’ for every five-years offense free in the community. That’s why it makes no sense that the tiered registry relies on the Static-99R to determine *lifetime* risk. Worse even, the Static-99R is not good for 10 years… it is only valid for only *two years* after release from jail/prison. It is important to note that the Static-99R purports to fortune-tell only from the moment you are released from incarceration or sentenced to probation. The Static-99R is *not* a dynamic test, as it does not take into consideration offense-free years in the community and/or even *current* age. See page 13:

“In some cases, evaluations may be for offenders who have had a substantial period at liberty in the community (since their release from the index sex offence; see definition and examples of “release” on pages 48) with opportunity to sexually reoffend, but have not done so. The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

Static-99R Coding Rules Link:

There is also a subjective aspect to it: “For offenders released for longer than two years and who have remained sex offence free, consider their overall behaviour and factors external to Static-99R in your overall risk assessment.”

Not sure how the DOJ will handle the subjective nuances to the Static-99R.

sorry here’s the exact rule:

“In some cases, evaluations may be for offenders who have had a substantial period at liberty in the community (since their release from the index sex offence; see definition and examples of “release” on pages 48) with opportunity to sexually reoffend, but have not done so. The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. OUR RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT, IN GENERAL, FOR EVERY FIVE YEARS THE OFFENDER IS IN THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT A NEW SEX OFFENCE, THEIR RISK FOR RECIDIVISM ROUGHLY HALVES (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk.”

I would be negative by this.

Well stated. Steve, I believe I read somewhere that a Static 99 is no longer valid after 10 years (considering the individual is crime free). Clearly, how could you even perform a Static 99 on an 85 year old who committed his crime 40 years ago? It would make no sense, considering a Static 99 never existed then/and the individual is hopefully crime free. This is clearly something that would need to be looked into.

NPS, that is very interesting but this is what I have been told:

The Public Defender’s Office told me that because I was never in jail, I was not eligible for a COR. I petitioned the Governor’s Office for a pardon and was told by the Governor’s Office that i could not get a COR but that I have already received a 1203.4 if would be considered.

I think the jail time is the deciding factor and they feel that if the judge believed enough in your rehabilitation to grant a 1203.4 then you have done what the DOR requires. I am not a lawyer but these are the facts that I have been told..

It sounds like you didn’t have very good legal advice…and the public defender’s office, no less. I would take their advice with a grain of salt. I am of the opinion that they know very little about 290 issues, nor do they keep up to date with the ever changing laws.

I recall once when I was researching getting a 1203.3, 17b, and 1203.4, the San Francisco public defender’s office said they couldn’t help me and that I was not qualified to file in their jurisdiction; I would have to file in Orange County where I was originally adjudicated. I just chalked it up to sheer laziness on their part because I already knew that as of July 1, 2010, when a probationer moves to another county, the original county is mandated by state law to transfer the entire case to the new county and that all decisions going forward would be made by the new county. This was the very reason why I left Orange County for San Francisco County after my conviction. My entire case and probation was accepted by San Francisco County not because they were being courteous but because state law mandated it. Rather than accept the public defender’s opinion on my case, I ended up filing all motions in SF County in pro per, and I won.

The valuable lessons I learned:
1. Public Defenders Offices don’t know much.
2. You are your own best advocate.
3. Research Research Research.
4. Know how to read the law, the codes, etc.

Tom, that’s incorrect. Jail time has nothing to do with a COR. I’m betting 10000000/1 it’s due to your offense. NPS isn’t a lawyer. Only certain registerable offenses are eligible for a COR! Best of luck.

USA is correct and seems like Tom is also correct. I did what Tom tried to do and was also told I am not eligible for CoR. My offense is the reason even though I served no time in jail and my conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor an dexpunged.

Cam, what was the code for your offense? CoR is actually a step towards ending a registration and doesn’t do it in itself. First you need to get the CoR and then you apply it to 290.5. You might be able to get the CoR and still be ineligible.

I think just about everyone technically qualifies for the CoR itself. In general, it offers you relief by cleaning up your criminal record and allowing your to obtain certain licenses from which you might otherwise be barred from due to your record. However, there’s a split CoR qualification between everyone else and those who have to register under 290. Everyone else can apply for CoR regardless of where they did time (country or prison, probation or parole). For 290’s, a pre-qualification is that you first get a 1203.4 “expungement”. The only people eligible for 1203.4 are those who were granted probation. If you were sentenced to state prison and/or violated your probation and were sent to state prison as a result, you cannot get an expungement, thus disqualifying your from obtaining a CoR.

Then, once you do get the CoR, you have to apply it to 290.5 and check if you qualify there as well.

Here’s the text 290.5

290.5. (a) (1) A person required to register under Section 290 for an offense not listed in paragraph (2), upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall be relieved of any further duty to register under Section 290 if he or she is not in custody, on parole, or on probation.

(2) A person required to register under Section 290, upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall not be relieved of the duty to register under Section 290, or of the duty to register under Section 290 for any offense subject to that section of which he or she is convicted in the future, if his or her conviction is for one of the following offenses:

(A) Section 207 or 209 committed with the intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.

(B) Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem.

(C) Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a felony.

(D) Paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.

(E) Section 264.1.

(F) Section 266, provided that the offense is a felony.

(G) Section 266c, provided that the offense is a felony.

(H) Section 266j.

(I) Section 267.

(J) Section 269.

(K) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 286, provided that the offense is a felony.

(L) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of, or subdivision (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), (j), or (k) of, Section 286.

(M) Section 288.

(N) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 288a, provided that the offense is a felony.

(O) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of, or subdivision (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), (j), or (k) of, Section 288a.

(P) Section 288.5.

(Q) Section 288.7.

(R) Subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of Section 289, provided that the offense is a felony.

(S) Subdivision (i) or (j) of Section 289.

(T) Section 647.6.

(U) The attempted commission of any of the offenses specified in this paragraph.

(V) The statutory predecessor of any of the offenses specified in this paragraph.

(W) Any offense which, if committed or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses specified in this paragraph.

(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a person described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) shall not be relieved of the duty to register until that person has obtained a full pardon as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4850) of Title 6 of Part 3.

(2) This subdivision does not apply to misdemeanor violations of Section 647.6.

(3) The court, upon granting a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, if the petition was granted prior to January 1, 1998, may relieve a person of the duty to register under Section 290 for a violation of Section 288 or 288.5, provided that the person was granted probation pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 1203.066, has complied with the provisions of Section 290 for a continuous period of at least 10 years immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and has not been convicted of a felony during that period.

Again, I read and read and read the articles and the comments. And I am still lead to question whether all of this pertains to Federal Felony Porn offenders. I asked Janice this question numerous times, she really does try to answer, even sending me the actual final document. My son took that document to his monthly meeting of Federal sex offenders, all same charge. They, the parole officers etc all say this ruling does not apply to them. That, it has to go from the State to the Federal Parole Board…My son is actually on what is called Supervised Release. The language, the understanding is never clarified. I hope this subject will be discussed in the conference. I will call in.

What happened to this conference call? I called in at 8pm eastern and an hour later, still no conference. Did I miss it?

im here in California, same question i have RM, i called 30 minutes before just to check it out, 2 hours later still nothing?

I called in at 5:03pm California time. I missed the first couple of minutes, but heard all the rest of it just fine. It ended about 6:07pm.

This was a good conference. Chance’s comments at the end that this isn’t finished, that laws always change, and Janice saying they will fight to get CP out of tier three because it is just unacceptable is very encouraging. Thanks for all you do. But the one feeling I got listening to the review of the bill was a sense of disbelief of how harsh and utterly oppressive it is. If I would have shot someone in an armed robbery twelve years ago I would probably be done with it all, but I looked at some objectionable images and I am punished for life.

Unless it’s a misdemeanor possession of CP. Mine is misdemeanor 311.11(a) which is tier 1. Also, because my conviction date was after January 1st, 2014 I cannot apply for relief under 1203.4, which the way I read it means I cannot apply for a COR when the time is right as it seems to indicate that in order to get a COR I must be granted relief under 1203.4 which I’m not eligible for.. anyone else read that differently? I hope someone will challenge that change to 1203.4 in the future.

Thanks for addressing the Static-99R (aka. SARATSO “test”) toward the end. But it seems there was a mistaken assumption that the Static-99R “risk” values are dynamic. The Static-99R values are *not* dynamic, as the risk figures are a SNAPSHOT of immediately when a person is released from incarceration. That is the reason that the Static-99R is only valid for two years. See Coding Rules, at 13 [“Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”].

The Static-99R does *not* even claim to measure risk on an ongoing, dynamic basis. It is a *static snapshot* estimate of when a person is *just released* from incarceration. Hence, why the “test” is called “Static.” So even if a person is said to score at x–and is estimated to recidivate at y% at five years, then z% at ten years–it certainly does not mean that that will be true at the one, two, three, four, five year (and so on) level when an offender has been offense-free during that time. The Static-99R does not even claim to measure risk of recidivism on an ongoing basis.

When you factor sample representatives (or lack thereof) of the crimes mixed into the Static, then it becomes even more questionable to what the Static-99R is *really* measuring. And whether the Static is even measuring anything scientific at all? Just look at who is writing all the predicating Static-99R “validation” data–as well as the lack of transparency into the data itself–to see that there is certainly something fishy going on.

so i heard from the broadcast that if a person was convicted at age 21 he/she is eligible for early termination ? if that’s the case does that person need to wait until 2021? what is considered early termination? by 2021 i will have 27 years on registry , i happen to have 24 years now and i was the age of 21 (took a deal) does that hurt or help me? does the age of tbe person play a factor? so if early is possible-where do, who do we inquire about that petition? do we go to law enforcement? and inquire about? yes its a new California registery so im thinking local law enforcement might not be aware of that early termination.

after hearing the discussion there was mention that if a person was convicted at 21 he/she is eligible for early termination, what is considered early termination? i happen to be 21 in my situation at that time, i also have to this date 24 years on registry, in 2021 i will have 27 years in total, i basically took a deal, so does that hurt me? does age of the other play a factor? nature of? i never been in trouble since, so how-who do we inquire about that early petition/termination? the tiered system is new in California so im thinking theres little info thst law enforcement will be aware of because its so new,,

The conference call stated that misdemeanor 647.6 will now be on the Megan’s law website. I stated this from the beginning but Janice said I was wrong. As I mentioned before, I’m not a California attorney but I am a practicing attorney in the State of New York. Can we get some clarification Janice? I believe you owe it to us since you previously said that 647.6 as a misdemeanor would still be exempted from Megan’s Law.

I think I know where the misunderstanding may be. 647.6 misdemeanor is tier one and this tier is completely unlisted. But tier two has a provision that states if you’ve received two separate 647.6 misdemeanors you’re now tier two and this tier is partially listed with name and zip only. Hopefully Janice or another person in her group can clarify.

A subsequent conviction of 647.6 is always a felony. Also, a felony was never eligible for exclusion from Megan’s Law, so when the attorney speaker said that exclusion no longer applies, she was referring to misdemeanor single convictions.

So 647.6 IS going to be on the public site now?

Well that’s a huge bummer. I still recall during the bill negotiations someone saying “Child molesters can stay off the public website!” referring to 647.6. This was an awesome example of the politician(s) who said this clearly going by the words in the code alone and not any real background as to whom it is given and for what. I have this and my crime was completely non-contact. Another person in our rehab group had this as well, and there’s was non contact also. This isn’t the molestation you’re thinking of.

It honestly doesn’t seem like there was any deep understanding beyond the words of any of the codes given on how they decided to distribute everything among the tiers. Placing 311.4 into their 3 when its given to people for upskirt, non-contact pictures seems ridiculous. There’s certainly a great difference between upskirt and filming full-on pornography. Someone viewing a persons profile and seeing this code, its language, and the person being Tier 3, 11/10 times they’ll think this person is guilty of creating full-on CP. Couple that with 647.6 language and you’re now sexually molesting kids and creating CP in the worst way possible. I challenge anyone to find a single person not in the know who’d think otherwise. I’ve actually run into a few people in conversations who genuinely thought that “You can look at Megan’s Law to see the difference between those real pedo’s and guys caught peeing in the park”. I think they think LE actually provides details of the case versus straight code language.

Is 647.6 on the public website or not?

Yes. 647.6, as a misdemeanor will now be on the public website. No exclusions will be available if the law isn’t changed before 2021.

Well, I’m sorry I was unable to listen in on the phone call. I do have a few questions. (This could make a big difference ie: Tier 1 or 3).

What if you where convicted of Sexual Battery PC 243.4 (a) Felony? Tier? What if the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor? What if (any offense) an offense was expunged? What Tier?

So is 647.6 misdemeanor no longer on the exclusion list?
And if not, is it possible to get some form of injunction to prevent this?

There is no longer any exclusions for misdemeanor 647.6; I think there is a good argument to be made about retroactive punishment if violation of the Constitution considering many states and a federal appellate court have started to come around that the public website is punitive.

Here is the million dollar question. Everyone should read this. For many convictions, the difference between a Felony and Misdemeanor could be the difference between a Tier 1 and Tier 3! I imagine if your plea is reduced to a misdemeanor, that’s it? (It’s officially a misdemeanor when determining your Tier?). Furthermore, what if (I think the law changed in 2014/prohibiting many convicted of sex offenses from getting their charges reduced to misdemeanors and expunged). Although, what if someone (you guys keep asking) had their misdemeanor 647.6 expunged? 243.4 expunged? What Tier are they now on?

You’re right about the reduction having a significant effect on some convictions. 311.11 is currently Tier 3 as a felony but Tier 1 as a misdemeanor. And 17b reduction makes something a misdemeanor for all purposes and should help in this case (but who really knows until this goes into effect with all the BS they constantly pull).

But the 1203.4 “expungement” (this isn’t a true expungement but rather setting aside you’re guilty plea and conviction; everything is still on your record otherwise) doesn’t seem to have any barring at all as per 290 something (I’m sure someone can state the exact code), 1203.4 makes a specific exception for all 290’s from being alleviated from all duties and penalties that 1203.4 otherwise offers to everyone else. That’s why there’s talk about possibly suing under the 14 Amendment regarding this. Also, no where in the new tiered registry is 1203.4 mentioned. So there’s no reason to think between the language of the new bill and current language making 1203.4 all by worthless for 290’s, to have any effect once the tiered registry goes into effect.

I’m certainly hoping that I am completely wrong about this and there will in fact be something positive for people who were able to get 1203.4.

INCORRECT. There is NO MENTION of any exceptions for 290 RCs within 1203.4. That is precisely what “New Person” has been arguing. It is 290.007 that is denying relief from all duties and penalties that 1203.4 gives us. There is no reason to challenge 1203.4 pursuant to the 14th amendment. It is 290.007 that needs to be challenged.

Now as far as the tiered registry is concerned, once it goes into effect in 2021, it is PC 4852.01 that will be removed. This is otherwise known as Certificate of Rehabilitation. The CoR, which grants relief of registration for some sex offenses, will no longer relieve registration after the tiered registry is enacted. If you are eligible for a CoR, do so before 2021. Just remember, one criterion is having the 17b and 1203.4 before applying for the CoR.

If you had a 17b reduction to misdemeanor and a 1203.4 expungement, YOU WILL BE ON TIER 1. I have heard this often repeated both on this site, at the meetings, and on the conference calls.

Is ten years the minimum number of years to be considered for the CoR? My conviction was in 2012.

14th amendment, sec 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Key Phrase: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

1203.4 provides immunities to three items:
1. Conviction set aside
2. Accusation/information dismissed
3. Relieved from all penalties and disabilities from the Conviction

PC 290.007 states:
“Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 , unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5 .”

PC 290.007 is knowingly abridging the immunity set forth in 1203.4, triggered by the keyword “regardless”.

CA has its own Constitutional protections as well.
CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b. “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.” (This is a very important protection b/c this is what prop 57 is going through right now. Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state a registrant must continue to register, but it does give immunity to the 3 bullet points I denoted above. The registry continues to admit your conviction as well as what type of conviction.)

CA Const, Art 1, Sec 9. “A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.” (This is similar to 14th Amendment’s “not abridging an immunity”, but using “law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed”.)

CA Const, Art 1, Sec 1. “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” (The State of CA has denied a legal way to pursue and obtain privacy.)

What makes all this worse for PC 290.007 is the 1203.4 immunity contract does list specific sex convictions that cannot apply for the immunity in 1203.4(b). So the state is being vehemently retributive with 290.007 when they cite, “regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4”. They knowingly are impairing the contract of 1203.4 here with sheer disregard.

Please make a note that 1203.4 was enacted in 1872. PC 290.007 was effective as of 2007. According to CA Const, Art 1, Sec 9, PC 290.007 is impairing the 1203.4 contract set forth by the courts that was long established in 1872.

@NPS, that’s what I meant when I said “per 290 something (I’m sure someone can state the exact code)”

And it’s not a change to the CoR with the new registry that will prevent us from getting off via that route, but the replacement of 290.5. The CoR itself remains unchanged. Currently you first need to get the CoR and then apply it to 290.5 to see if your code is eligible. The new tiered registry replaced the entire current language of 290.5 pertaining to the CoR relief with the whole tiered registry itself.

Also, is it just me or wasn’t 311.11 Felony a Tier 3 offense in the final bill? I just looked at it and it seems to be tier 2.
(2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years…a felony violation of Section 311.11

And, are you sure this is true for every conviction?
“If you had a 17b reduction to misdemeanor and a 1203.4 expungement, YOU WILL BE ON TIER 1. I have heard this often repeated both on this site, at the meetings, and on the conference calls.”

Looking at the tiered bill its confusing. 311.11 is specifically refereed to as Felony for tier 2. But some codes under tier 3 most of the codes (but not all) don’t say felony or misdeminor such as this example:

(N) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.

To further confuse the issues, 311.4 is specifically refereed to as a felony under the section talking about internet disclosure:

(S) A felony violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 311.4.

So someone with a misdemeanor 311.4 might end up as tier 3 but be completely unlisted? That seems very weird.

That depends on your charges. According to PC 4852.03, in the case of a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, or of Section 311.3, 311.10, or 314, the waiting period is 7 years. These are CP offenses.

For everyone else who qualifies for CoR, it’s 10 years.

@ AlexO,

At the last meeting (3/10 in Berkeley), it was explicitly stated that ALL CP offenses will be Tier 3.

As per the misdemeanor vs. felony argument, 311.11 used to be a wobbler. It became a straight felony effective January 1, 2014. For those who have this conviction prior to 2014, they can reduce to a misdemeanor per 17b. For everyone convicted after 2014, that option is gone.

Again, I have to refer back to what I hear at the meetings. It was stated that if you are eligible for 17b reduction, 1203.4 expungement and/or CoR, do it before 2021.

@NPS, that’s so confusing. Here’s the bill I was looking at earlier today from which I pulled all my info. It shows 311.11 as Tier 2. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

I was also aware regarding the changes of 311.11 and some people being grandfathered in to still be able to get a reduction and expungement for it.

My question was regarding your ALL misdemeanors statement. As far as I can tell, 311.4 is still eligible for a reduction even if convicted today. The law still doesn’t specifically state its a felony (it does that on 311.11) and it allows punishment by imprisonment for in either county or state prison. Both these things should make this a wobbler as far as I understand it.

If you have any further insight, I’d love to hear it. This is rather difficult to understand. Thanks for your time!

@ AlexO

The link you provided may not have the bill’s latest update. I’m looking at the paperwork ACSOL provided last week at the Berkeley meeting. It shows November 2017 as the last update. The bill states that ALL felony 311’s will be Tier THREE. As of 2014, all 311’s are felonies (including 311.4); no more wobblers. For those who were convicted prior to 2014, they still have a chance at the 17b (if their charge qualifies.)

Looking back at this same paperwork, Tier ONE states any misdemeanor sex offense. So if your charge was a misdemeanor or has been reduced to a misdemeanor via 17b, you are Tier 1. Someone asked about 647.6. A misdemeanor offense is Tier 1. However, if there is a second, separate charge of 647.6, it is Tier 2.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x