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

Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

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?

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

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?

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..

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?