ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

CA: Lawsuit Challenges Tiered Registry Law Provision

[ACSOL]

A lawsuit has been filed challenging a provision of the California Tiered Registry Law that assigns individuals convicted of similar offenses to two different tiers.  Specifically, the law assigns individuals convicted of Penal Code 288(a) to Tier 2, which requires a minimum of 20 years registration, and yet assigns individuals convicted of Penal Code 288(c) to Tier 3, which requires lifetime registration.

“The only difference between these two offenses is the age of the victim,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “And the current language of the law punishes individuals whose victims are older more harshly than individuals whose victims are younger.  This makes no sense and is a violation of the equal protection clause in the state constitution.”

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a 79-year-old man who was convicted of Penal Code 288(c) more than 20 years ago and has been assigned to Tier 3.  If the same man was convicted of Penal Code 288(a), he would have been assigned to Tier 2.  The defendants in the case are the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

According to the lawsuit, there are additional provisions in the Tiered Registry Law that also punish more severely individuals convicted of less severe offense such as misdemeanor sexual battery (Penal Code 243.4(e)) and possession of child pornography (PC 311.11(a)).  Additional lawsuits are expected to be filed in the future to address those provisions.

This lawsuit was filed in Sacramento Superior Court and the final decision in the case could affect registrants throughout the state of California.  It is believed to be the first lawsuit filed challenging a provision of the Tiered Registry Law.

CA Tiered Registry Complaint (PDF)

 

 

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.  
 
107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Go Lawsuit!!!

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a conviction under California Penal Code 288(c)(1) (lewd and lascivious acts on a child who is 14 or 15 years old when the defendant is at least 10 years old than the the child) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor categorically a crime of child abuse.

Where did you get this information?

@Robert Brandy: If it’s available to you, can you post a link to this decision or at least the case name? This has the potential for being extremely helpful to me. I have a 288(c)(1) and a 17b reduction.
Thank you!

Menendez v Whitaker (11/8/18)

@ Robert Brandy and Pursuit:

Thank you both for the info!!! This is awesome to know for anyone with a 288(c)(1).

@ Robert Brandy and Pursuit:
Indeed, thank you both!

Ok easy fix say the legislators…move them all to tier 3. Or you’re right 288 (a) is now tier 3

Yeah, that looks to be a very real possibility. Well the CP registrants would be happy as they have done nothing wrong and there is no victim (according to them). Okay yes that is overstated but they don’t seem to grasp that consumption drives production. Production is worse than most 288(a) because we are not posting them online – which causes its own additional harm. That is the part LEA gets a bit miffed. We all did something we should not have done. Some more than others, but throwing each other under the bus???

I think that’s a myth. I seriously doubt many are making money off said images, and if anything they like sharing images with people who are of the same mindset to reinforce what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Yes, they’re breaking the law, but to treat them as if they committed the molestation itself is asinine. There’s plenty of videos online with Isis in Iraq beheading people. If you saw one of the videos should you be charged and treated as if you physically beheaded someone? The truth is all common sense goes out the door when crimes involve anything to… Read more »

Please explain to me how consumption drives production for those of us who anonymously looked at this indirectly and ended up with a single charge of 311.11 (A)?

@ Truth and Norman When A person gets involved with a minor, it is viewed by the “offender” as a relationship. The young person is known and cared about by the offender. There are of course instances where this is not the case but the vast majority follow what I wrote. When a child is used for production of child porn the child is not cared for and is dehumanized to an object. Moving forward, When a community of people come together for pornographic material it drives the producers to produce more as their community likes it/requests more and they… Read more »

Nice straw man argument. There is a difference between what people convicted of CP are saying (that we do not deserve to be on Tier 3) and what you say we’re saying. We’ve been thrown under the bus with this tiered registry. I would have been eligible for a COR in 2024 and would have gotten it in the county where I live, but no longer an option, and now I am stuck with lifetime registration. So yeah, if everyone else gets thrown onto Tier 3, then we’ll ask you How does it feel now? This has nothing to do… Read more »

@AW, if a couple wanted a chilld but it was born with birth defects, you wouldn’t condemn the parents for wanting a child. I get that you and other CP convictions that should be tier 1 and 2 were thrown under the bus. But it was not done to you by ACSOL. The original Tiered Registry Bill that ACSOL supported was killed by Assembly Chair of Appropriations, Lorena Gonzalez Then Gov. Brown forced her to bring it back, but she and the police union that supports her poisoned it with the CP changes ACSOL wanted a way for a majority… Read more »

Hi, Roger. I’m not putting all the blame at ACSOL’s feet, but they should have known better what politicians would do with this, and will do with this (put practically everyone on Tier 3). The lofty goals you say are ACSOL’s aims will not be achieved quickly, certainly not in the 3 years time where a COR would have provided me relief. The COR should have been preserved. Now, even if you are Tier 1 and Tier 2, people who should have no say in your offramp from the registry can play games with you. I respect your opinion, but… Read more »

Yup, @ Steve. 288 a is now gonna be a Tier 3 before long. Once this lawsuit is handled they are gonna roast a lot of registrants. Though I agree this is wrong having 288 c on a 3 I think the timing is bad. No way they are gonna let a’s stay on 2 with c’s. Good luck guys, but I think many of you are gonna get fried by good ole Republicans and Democrats!

How about filing a suit challenging the no individual risk assessment issue. I do not get it, That seemed to be an issue that carried weight in other cases and states such as Alaska, Hawaii and I believe Oregon as well. That would solve a lot of problems and issues such as equal protection and law suit after law suit. Just seems logical. Especially in state court with much broader constitutional protections and I think a favorable SC. Individual risk assessments a must, not static offense based. Only way it is rational at all. Other wise just as people already… Read more »

…and Michigan it was a huge issue. You’re right Mike. Hopefully this lawsuit brings about INDIVIDUAL risk assessment. If 40000 288 (a)’s get re-assigned there would be another lawsuit as that would be without any assessment.hell in would pay 1k for it

Thank you for working on our behalf.

Trust Janice et al. Her and the crew got us this far. We’ll tear it down brick by brick. Some of us won’t see the fall. As long as we help the drive our younger generations won’t be cursed by this experiment gone wrong. The legislature deemed it bloated, broken and ineffective. The tier version is the incremental change. It’s clear they want to tether quite a few for life, but did so throwing darts blindfolded. No way they move 288(a) to tier III. That would go full circle back to where we started, bloated and ineffective. It’s a numbers… Read more »

This is in fact exactly what the legislature did in 2014 under another case that was in our favor under the equal protection clause.

Well thought out! What is PC 243.4 (e)? Are you saying that a misdemeanor PC 243.4 (e)! Is a tier 3? I imagine your lawsuit is well thought out and your planning ahead. I would imagine one of my biggest concerns is ensuring the DOJ recognizes 17b (that’s clear cut). My other question might be, how will they address someone with a 17b/expungement? And, how might they address a felony straight expungement? Thank you Janice. Great time to make contributions

@Janice, why not also 243.4(a)? If 288(a) is T-2, I would imagine 243.4(a) should be also, since it would seem it’s less of a crime in comparison, especially when it’s a case of familial related case as opposed to a random victim.

God speed Janice and team!

Drew, are you talking about a felony PC 243.4a?

Yes, felony.

288(c) should definitely be tier2 I think the DOJ made a mistake on this one it’s not surprising though SB384 was rushed and signed behind closed doors. i think Scott Wener was trying get the bill passed by any means necessary he new ACSOL would be quick to challenge its many flaws once the Law became effective. fileing a Lawsuit could go 3 ways in my opinion 1.the DOJ fixes their mistake and place 288(c) in tier1 2.they switch 288(c) to tier2 3.they switch 288(a) to tier3 and switch 288(c) to tier2 Ether way it’s a mistake that needs to… Read more »

First off, congrats. This is a huge wrong that needs to be fixed. But… I think by bringing up 288 (a)’s you are gonna hang em! Once this gets around the legislatures they will get all the 288 (a)’s on 3. I know you mentioned you have something to stop that, but I can’t possibly believe you have something over hateful politicians, for one MMelendez, who already fought to have 288 on Tier 3, will by right at the leading of the pack. Take in a possible recall election, I think this spells a lot of bad doom. I understand… Read more »

We have been members of ACSOL for about 4 years now. Always enjoyed the meetings and going to Sacramento to fight for these injustices. I completely agree 288 C1 should no way in the world be a Level Tier 3! I have no idea even how this happened. But I have to be honest now. I am shocked over the language in the lawsuit. Janice or whomever wrote this up, I think the chance of 288 (a) getting off is over with now. And like a few others that wrote above, once legislatures read the lawsuit they will scratch their… Read more »

@Jab and @ Steve. I agree. 17b’s my current situation, should have been dealt with first. I also just finished reading the lawsuit and I was surprised at how acsol kinda dismantled the term violent sex offenders and used 288’ers as their prose. I was thrown off guard a little too by the words. I feel bad for you guys, especially after reading some offenses are super close in age and not stranger danger. I also see your point that there are situations that even a 288.c.1 is worse off even though sentencing laws might slightly differ. This more than… Read more »

Mike, JAB and others – I understand that you have concerns about the lawsuit and the attention we are calling to those convicted of PC 288(a). Our message, of course, is that those convicted of PC 288(c) should be assigned to Tier 2 like those convicted of PC 288(a). There are certain things we cannot and will not discuss on a public website or in a recorded monthly meeting regarding the strategy behind this lawsuit. Please be patient and know that we are fully aware of what we are doing and believe we are on a path to success. As… Read more »

Thank you Janice I figured as
much but nice to hear it.

Experience is that will not be the effect.

In the past, the thing treated as lesser was set to be worse to even the scales.

@ JAB, I believe the complaint, as difficult as it was to read, merely reiterated existing case law and the penal code. It does not make new accusations or categorizations but states law already settled. However, this is my first reading of the details of 288 and its history, so what do I know? However, I did sense some intriguing and broad possibilities between the lines. Janice knows Sacramento probably better than any lawyers practicing in other cities.

@Ditto. Yes, it did reiterate current case law, but at what expense? Hanging over 40K registrants who are now being likened to a Jerry Sandusky, violent felony crime? No, I don’t agree sorry. I do agree that something had to be done with the misdemeanors being on Tier 3. That is ridiculous and in my opinion, someone was real dumb when doing that. I honestly think it was an overstep. LG-Fletcher and LE was after CP not 288c’s. And I disagree, this did “categorize” the term violent with the PC288 a, which many were not aware of. The background of… Read more »

I want to possibly shed a little light in regards to your spouses case. There is a special exemption for those who were under 21 at the time of their offense. I believe your spouse would be able to file after 10 years instead of 20 because of his age. Please don’t lose hope in the process. ACSOL is attempting to get justice for all.

@ Pursuit, thank you for the information. I was aware of that, but in my spouse’s situation, we have over 30 plus years so we are good to go on that! I appreciate that. It is hard not to lose hope when your spouse’s PC is referenced to that of a Violent Predator with young victims (unless it was with force) That is my problem there, as all 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s PC 288 a’s were not Violent felonies! I cannot comment on future charges, but I assume the fear morons added the PC 288 a to violent felonies under… Read more »

Here is one amendment to PC 667.5(c) in 2000: (c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” means any of the following: (old version) (c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean any of the following: (as of 2000 forward) Small details and legal semantics. I suspect failed law enforcement litigation regarding what is “violent” brought on this change in the wording. It appears PC667.5 and PC1192.7 are laws that were written to prohibit plea bargaining and add sentence enhancements for recidivism. They are strictly prospective when amended. They cannot reach back retroactively such as our… Read more »

Hi CJ. Thank you for that information. But the problem with the term violent felony being added in my opinion, is those going forward. If 2000 is the year they added 288 a to violent felonies list ( I have no idea) then those in the past should not be labeled part of that. My spouse did not even get arrested, had no bail (violent felony charges all have large bail, if any) and you do not get probation with a violent sex felony conviction. We all know what a violent felony is, murder, kidnapping etc. Those are horrible charges,… Read more »

JAB:

I understand why you’re upset.

Here’s the deal. Court documents will show if it was deemed serious or violent. It doesn’t automatically happen.

My case docket in 1996 shows only ALLEGATIONS of pc 1192.7.

Sounds like yours is neither serious or violent. Check the court records.

No way 288(a) bumps up. That would equate to a 10,000/10,000/80 000 tier breakdown.

@ JAB:. You wrote “But be careful folks, all the 288 C felonies, might one day be added against your knowledge to the growing term of what a “violent” felony is and you will done for life as well.” In Florida, any and all physical contact is considered “violent”. So a 288c is already, by law, a violent felony there. Yes, bizarre and truly Florida! 🙄

No, actually, I suspect this will create a larger wrong.

Thanks for nothing

I concur Mike S. The priority I have is to address how 17b will be handled and PC 1203.4. This can have a dramatic affect on a multitude of individuals. Can a guy who went to prison be a tier 2 and a guy with a 17b/expunged misdemeanor be a tier 3??

I had a 288 with probation and did 3 months furlough, no jail, I was 19 and my girlfriend was 13 almost 14. I applied for internet exclusion and got that. I am 55 now, married to my wife/victim for almost 40 years, 4 kids and no issues. Now I read that my case is severe and it will more than likely be a 3 now!!! I am now a violent sex offender? How so. I did no jail time, excluded from hit-list. So the 79 year plaintiff is a better man? Thank you guys who ever felt this route… Read more »

@ Johnnie B.: You were very fortunate. My “victim” was one year below the State’s age of consent and, for that, I spent 4+ years in State prison.

🥳 Thank you, Janice & ACSOL!! 👏👏👏

Janice and team – Thanks so much for all you do. I truly hope that the lawsuit bears fruit. I know there are a number of you that are extremely concerned as it relates to 288A, but trust Janice she’s done wonderful work in the past and I don’t think the DOJ wants to get into a game of trying to reassign various PC codes unless they are legally obligated to do so

Hey Mr. D, I have a 311.11 and waiting on getting everything removed this year. Janice and team has done great work but I can see the concern now from the others after reading this. I don’t agree with you on your doj comment Mr. D. They are spineless animals there and would love those convicted of pc section 288 a on tier 3. I think I had read many 288 a do not have a tier and are to tbd? So that is an easy fix for them, keep them in the to be determined tier, then put em… Read more »

Janice, thank you for filing this lawsuit! I read the entire complaint (PDF), and each and every word felt like vindication. My situation is almost identical to that of the plaintiff’s. Same PC code, same 17(b), etc.
I pray for the success of this lawsuit and for relief. Thank you and all at ACSOL for everything you do!!!

When is the lawsuit to move internet stings (no contact, no victim) to a lower tier?

288a – the person can claim they thought the victim was older (bad judgement)
288c – the person knew the victim was underage (bad behavior)

This is the battle.

And good old 647.6, the weird one where a phantom can accuse a person they never knew of a touch offense that never happened. It’s one that David Tulcan played out in 2017 against someone who went to look for their ill mother at a restaurant, can’t remember which. Funny, the accused probably didn’t even see who this accuser was, sort of like accidentally bumping into someone you never see again.

“According to the lawsuit, there are additional provisions in the Tiered Registry Law that also punish more severely individuals convicted of less severe offense such as misdemeanor sexual battery (Penal Code 243.4(e)) and possession of child pornography (PC 311.11(a)).”

I could not find any reference to PC 311.11 in the lawsuit.

Need to take a deep breath. Janice stated that the 311.11(a) concerns would be addressed in a future lawsuit. My take is that they don’t want to throw too much into a single suit, since the opposition could get snotty and oppose everything. One fight at a time. Evidently all those that have seen the lack of acknowledgment of the 17(b) by CASCOMB feel that this is a fix that will happen.

I wonder… ACSOL takes the easiest hanging fruit to identify the tiered registry made a grave mistake due to equal protections constitutionality. If they can win that one first, then that opens the flood gates that there could be more inequality in the tiered registry. Remember, there were more changes that happened after the tiered registry was first approved. This reminds me of lawyers who can prove if the opposing lawyers doctored just one piece of information, then the whole case gets thrown out because who knows what other facts were compromised. Welp, if Janice and company can easily show… Read more »

Thank you ACSOL!!! 🙏 we are grateful for having you in our lives I don’t see many people wanting to stand up for all of us like you do. We are all effected by this whole registry and our families are suffering with us one day we are up and the next day we are down. But , we need to stay the course and have faith in the ones who have faith in us who are there to help us and frankly Janice and Chance are in the fire for us everyday and rely only on donations for doing… Read more »

Back in 2017 when SB384 was passed ACSOL seemed unhappy about it like they couldn’t sale hopeless people a dream any more if you think about it 70% of sex offenders going free and outhers with a possible off ramp that literally makes ACSOL whole movement pointless so I see why their rocking the boat so soon to protect their cash cow hopeless sex offenders and All this time I thought the government was the enemy

@Zap: I need to respectfully disagree with your comment especially the part “…that literally makes ACSOL whole movement pointless so I see why their rocking the boat so soon to protect their cash cow hopeless sex offenders…”. Janice, the Executive Director, has said numerous times that ACSOL will continue until the registry is abolished. She has said it in those words during recorded meetings. Our suffering is not a cash cow to ACSOL or any of its directors or participants. She has also pledged in the meantime to continue to fight for an offramp for “ALL” registrants. Right now they… Read more »

Agreed. People don’t realize how ACSOL isn’t really funded well enough to engage in so many lawsuits/cases. The people on here are probably its highest group of income. Yet, the organization is still growing, adding many scholars, advocates, and potential lawyers to create a stronger foundation. Most of the organization probably joined in charity to help. ACSOL started because one person decided to stand up for a registrant, Janice decided to stand up for Frank. Her advocacy grew to create CARSOL. Then it became Janice and Chance. Afterward, it evolved into ACSOL, so that it can be involved in registration… Read more »

Well… I’m certain there are more than few who have been registered for more than 20 years. I was first registered before there was a Megan’s Law web site. I was told “it’s just a piece of paper for law enforcement”. No one else see’s it. Not the case anymore. In the intervening 28 years, it’s become more and more of a “yellow star”, and even when there have been few direct confrontations, the absolute terror has at times been more than a little debilitating. Those few confrontations, have been… Educational. In one instance, I was assaulted in a recovery… Read more »

Using the terms “cash cow” is laughable and shows how little thought you put into your comment.
Janice and her team are doing what they can in the face of immense opposition and are getting very little in terms of donations comparatively to how many they are trying to represent.
That being said, I need to set up my monthly donations.
It’s unfortunate that the Paypal portal says “Sex Offender” for their site but it seams like this cannot be altered.
I hope everyone donates, ACSOL needs all the help they can get.

@Zap your just plain wrong ACSOL has helped us , its sad that RC’s just happen to be the poorest as well as the hardest to help , don’t forget that the LE engine has the largest engine to in this race , so in light of all us broke dick folks we could ask for no better org to have our backs , hey next chunk of change we get don’t forget to send some to ACSOL , even if its a book of stamps , when I was in prison over 30 years ago a book of stamps… Read more »

My Say – I believe that most people regret their actions and don’t think they never harmed anyone. You said you deserved your prison term, and I am sure most feel the same. BUT, we are talking about the punishment AFTER they completed their prison sentence. I think we can all agree that this goes beyond punishment. Like every other offender, they have the right to do their time and then move on. On another note, alcohol is promoted everywhere, and this leads to people driving drunk and killing innocent people, to include kids. Yet, they don’t treat the people… Read more »

Zap. We have been up and down like a yo-yo in Michigan over this crap lately. Our Gov. is a coward and won’t budge knowing these laws are punitive and punish us severely. Oh well, right. Organizations need money and they will slay for it. I follow Acsol from the Michigan references and I belong to NARSOL. Each requires a lot of cash to keep afloat. I am not sure if that is what is happening here but maybe a big donor came in and that is why these labels of violent felony are being thrown around. I am curious… Read more »

@ Peter: Yes, it is a numbers game. Based on the current numbers I see no way they bump 288(a) up. There are too many, virtually half of this PC290 monster. Trust in our leadership in the cause. You can’t have 80,000 in tier III. Won’t happen. @ JAB: I feel for ya but don’t think your spouse’s situation is synonymous with the equal protection 288(c) complaint. That just shows tier III being arbitrary and irrational. Based on your facts your spouse is neither deemed violent or serious. If it’s serious like you say it must state it in his… Read more »

The whole Tiered Registry was supposed to be for making it smaller as it has become unmanageable, and too many new offenses were added. That is why the registry should not exist at all. Just hearing that word makes me cringe. Who are these people that think they can punish people decades after their release from Prison or Jail? Yes, I know, they don’t consider it punishment, but why then are 10s of thousands of people stressed out? If it were just regulatory, we could relax. It is punishment and there is absolutely no arguing about it. Now, they are… Read more »

@Some one who cares , you got it right ! you knew this was going to be the case in this Tiered registry , and a few others got the whole trick bag behind the tier system , wait tell everyone sees that they will up the ante just like they have with prole over the years , already more rules on the registry than prole as it is , we can get years for not going by one rule , but hey its not punishment Right ? you know if we don’t want to tag our car we can… Read more »

Politicians need an enemy to prop them up. No one really cares about improving policies. Almost everybody drinks alcohol. More and more states approve the legal use of marijuana. Sex offenders are the easiest targets because there is no push back. There is an alcohol industry. There are now marijuana industries. There really is no road to redemption here. Tis a far cry from the theme, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” – John 8:1-11. Everyone else is allowed to make mistakes and redeem themselves, unless you’re categorized as a sex offender. This allows the trampling… Read more »

Someone who cares, I feel your frustration. I have been a registrant for over 20 years and after completing two college degrees, was later arrested for ‘failure to register.’ No one ever considers the ‘ grey areas,’ but only the black an white. I lived with my sister at the time. My daughter and her mom lived on the same street. My sister was not always the easiest to live with and so I would leave and go to my daughter’s house. A new tenant moved into the building and conducted an internet search and found me in the building;… Read more »

Just donated to the cause and if you give $100 you get a signed copy of Janice’s book.

I also donated, but, sadly, not enough to warrant a signed book copy. ha!

Represent us well, ACSOL!

COR Input: I filed a COR around June of last year. I was originally assigned a Dec Court date and later February. I just attended and I was then informed (The DA wasn’t prepared again) that the DA hadn’t done a background check (called my references/probably ran me). 1997 PC 243.4A/17B/expunged/summary. It appears the company who I hired specializes in 17B, expungements and COR. My counsel stated the DA could require a copy of my taxes, static 99, home visit and the list goes on and on. I was informed (I get the impression the company I use goes to… Read more »

wtf a 1997 crime that’s been 17b-ed and expunged still needs all that to be granted the ability to get off the registry? I hope the Tiered Registry Law is a lot better than that, especially considering LA County is considered the most “liberal” county. Are they seriously going to Static 99 you for an over 20 year old crime? The Static 99 is apparently only valid from two years to 10 years (depending on who you ask). As for tax returns, wtf does that have to do with being granted the relief from having to register? So many registrants… Read more »

“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, page 13.

@TMZ – If you were my client, I would recommend that you appear at your April hearing because the judge may want to ask you a question.

@janice you are correct . Although I was granted my COR in 2014 out of LA county downtown court house the judge did ask me two questions those two questions were (1) do you work sir and what do you do , (2) are you a danger to society as what the district attorney is claiming . I responded , I do work sir as a matter of fact I’m a licensed California contractor and I’m not a danger to society,sir. I was stoked when the judge stated “ I didn’t think you were.” Minutes later the judge granted my… Read more »

@TMZ: “My counsel also asked why I wasn’t just coming after the new Tier Law in July?” I hate to say this, but if your attorney is asking you this question, then he/she may not be the right kind of attorney to deal with registry issues. From everything I have learned, you will want to do ANYTHING you possibly can prior to petitioning for removal to “mitigate” your case and to improve your standing in the community. In my opinion, getting a COR would be a huge benefit to you before petitioning because it should help to demonstrate that you’re… Read more »

@TMZ you are stressing out big time . It sounds like you need a different attorney big time . Shoot, by the time you have a hearing you’ll be admitted in the hospital with severe stomach problems , relax . Read my story on my experience getting my COR from the LA County court house . My presiding judge was probably the best Hispanic judge known to LAcounty and finds favor in people who produce change . Believe me , this judge knows the character of people coming before him . I was told this judge could smell BS from… Read more »

Strange: my court dates have been delayed twice. The DA contacted (they work with him regularly) my counsel that morning and informed them they still hadn’t performed a background check and reference check? Later, my counsel informed me the DA could request a psych evaluation, static 99 (I’m like 2), request tax returns and make my life miserable. She informed me the DA stated that I didn’t need to attend the next hearing and unless (her exact words) they found dead bodies in my background check, he was 95% on board? Then, she mentioned or asked me if I was… Read more »

Personally, I would attend and keep trying to get the COR. You cannot be sure you’re eligible for relief under the tiered monstrosity. DOJ has pulled the rug out from under quite a few of us with their “TBD” and heavy-handed placement of non-violent, non-serious, reduced and expunged offenses into tier 3. And to be honest, if I hear ANY DA say, “Hey, why don’t ya just wait for July and apply under the new law,” I would ABSOLUTELY make sure I was there to fight for that COR. At least with the COR, they have to prove you’re a… Read more »

@TMZ
Go.
If the DA has any last minute objections, your presence alone will likely tip it in your favor. When my husband obtained his 17b , the over zealous DA objected, the judge asked my husband a couple of simple questions which he answered confidently and respectfully. The judge granted relief.
If the DA indicated you don’t really need to be present, it means the DA doesn’t want you to be present.
Stand up and show up. You’ve earned this.
I hope you get your COR.

Simple fix and a major issue, individual risk assessment law suit. Must have individual risk assessments in CA. The CA SC will most likely agree, look at how they acted in the internet and the residency restrictions cases. I think it is a win but no one will challenge it. I will soon if no one else does, just warning people I will act. Wish a credible attorney would act but if not I will in the near future. Plus not only a substantive due process issue with the no individual risk assessments, but also a major privacy issue in… Read more »

COR: I expect my attorney to defend me with the highest standard. I will contact my attorney prior to the court date, ask how is the DA and request he reach out to the DA prior. My attorney stated the DA was 95% sure he would support my request unless something came back on the background check. I applied (after 17b) for an expungement in LA years ago and got my court date confused. I was representing myself. The Judge granted my request. I’ll cover all basis. 1. I have an attorney representing me. What if they are shielding me… Read more »

17b: I don’t think addressing the 17b will be a problem. I believe the DOJ is supposed to train LE and it’s turned into a mess. It sounds like (reading this blog) we have a multitude of individuals whose 17b is correctly placing them in the correct tier and those of you that aren’t. This would be a legal and civil nightmare for the DOJ otherwise. The one question I have, is how will a Felony Expungement affect a Felony? I think it’s clear most 17b’s are tier 1. Yet, are there misdemeanors put in tier 2? If so, how… Read more »

Is there anyone out there that has received a certificate of rehab but now under the tiered registry must register under tier 3? My husbands address was never listed before , now he’s been assigned to tier 3, our address will be listed but he had a CoR. How does the same government that says he’s rehabilitated also say he’s so dangerous our address needs to be listed online. Hoping to take legal action but wondering if anyone else is facing this?

Yep, got my bomb dropped on me today when I registered: Tier 3 Lifetime. 22 years Tier 2 and now I am high risk. Wow. Can’t be right. All the hope for Janice and Chance to fix this.

The ink’s not even dry from the governor’s signature(as far as implementation)
on sb384,and all ready the legislators have swayed from the original frame work modeled
into sb421<384.The lawmakers have inscribed a revision to sb 384:removing the reflective
nature of tier assignment to public notification.
288(a) is now in full address and 288(c) misdemeanor is zip code only-but tier
3=lifetime.This is recent activity and another example of the California constitutional protections being neutered away(behind closed doors) from this group of people.

The fix is to vote out the knobheads that built this swamp of a “justice system”. And then vote out the next knobheads who are too weak to do what’s right.

And then put on a suit and get yourself on the ballot.

The ink’s not even dry from the governor’s signature(as far as implementation)
on sb384,and all ready the legislators have swayed from the original frame work modeled into sb421<384.The lawmakers have inscribed a revision to sb 384:removing the reflective nature of tier assignment to public notification.
288(a) is now in full address and 288(c) misdemeanor is zip code only-but tier
3?=lifetime.This is recent activity and another example of the California constitutional protections being neutered away(behind closed doors) from this group of people
Take a look,they've marked it away. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384&showamends=false

Janice/Chance – are there any updates on the lawsuit that you filed last month regarding 288c? Was curious if the DOJ had responded at all or if there were any updates that you could provide at this time. Thank you.

@Mr. D – Today I met and conferred with an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General. She said that they will file a demurrer (similar to motion to dismiss) arguing that the legislature had a “rational basis” for choosing to assign everyone convicted of PC 288 (c) to Tier 3. I told her, of course, that we disagree. The next step in the process is for them to request a hearing which will probably take place in the next 2 to 3 months. After the hearing, the judge will decide whether or not the case will go forward.

@Janice – hi Janice and thanks so much for the quick feedback. While I can see them trying to make an argument of being rational basis as a Felony I don’t see in any shape or form how they conclude that a misdemeanor should be assigned to tier 3. Thanks so much for everything that you do!

@Robert Brandy: I took a look at that link and unless you’re a Phildelphia lawyer, it’s hard to make heads or tails of it.
From what I can understand, however, it looks like 288(a) is Tier 3. Do I read this wrong?

SB384 Public notification policy:Not many attributes carried over from SB421(the legislation hoped to be attained)thou one unique quality remained-public disclosure was reflective-based on,the tier one was assigned to.A constant in the bill from it’s original draft. I\we could reference the bill before,during and after it was signed into law by our then Governor Jerry Brown,and in every iteration the language of public disclosure to tier placement was parallel. It remained such,dormant perhaps,until January 1st 2021. This is not the case today.This distinct part of the law has been penciled out.No,288(a) is tier 2 but full address nonetheless. This zip code… Read more »

As it relates to public disclosure on the newly implemented SB 384 bill, and I know exclusions are greatly reduced and I believe only available to those where you’re the victim was related to you. It is not offense based.

Starting in January of next year many people who have been excluded are unfortunately going to be added to the public website unless again their victim was related to them.

SB384: Individuals in California who this law will affect,should be mindful of any modifications made to the language since its signature by the governor back in 2017.I’m impressing upon the community here that this is what has been done. It’s not a false claim.In the telephone conversations through the past few years our professionals hosting the call-ins remark quite assuredly that tier 2 will be in zip code only,and tier 3 will be full address.Why?Because that was the law contained in SB 421<384.Why is this important? Well,first,it make intuitive sense, the more serious the crime the more information offered.Secondly,it codifies… Read more »

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384&showamends=false

Again,tier assignment will not be offered to the public and the level of personal
information displayed will not reflect tier placement.Can any intelligent commenters
give edification to why this would be a matter of concern or not.
Thank you,R

This will be my final comment for this issue.I’ll digress with a question: does anyone out there remember reading how public notification was going to relate to tier assignment with SB384?Do you also recall that all tier 2s would have there zip only listed.As well,that all tier 3s would be in full address listing?Because I\we distinctly saw,for example, 288(a) under zip code category.Well,now it’s back in full address. 288(c)misdemeanor is in zip category;this gives the impression, along with the fact that there’re not publishing tier assignment, that nothing has changed from the old law.Of course there’re removing all former exemptions… Read more »

@ Robert Brandy – I think you’re getting too caught up in in tiers and PC codes. The bottom line is that starting next year that internet exclusions will be solely awarded to those that are related to the victim. Tier level and PC code are irrelevant to this. Tier 3 assigned folks will still be excluded from the internet if their conviction fits this description.

I find it odd that no one’s tier assignment isn’t there. This paints all registrants at the most hideous form of a monster. By having tiers shared, then it’s possible the public gets re-educated that being on the registry doesn’t mean you’re the extreme like the media and government is bandying about. Plus, it might give the public some info such as the ratio of tier 1s to tier 2s to tier 3s, again, part of the re-education. But I do get why the government doesn’t want to share tier levels… it’s because they probably want to protect tier 3s.… Read more »

Thank you Mr.D

288(c) misdemeanor charge \conviction(not a wobbler
subsequently reduced) in municipal court.With an
accompanying pc1203.4 CA. dismissal .Green light
for a COR but not if was a reduction,interesting…
Will let this community know if\when tier is assigned.
Ty r -Member of the family.

Last edited 1 day ago by Robert Brandy

@Robert Brandy – Did you mean to say you’re waiting to try and get a COR? 288C is not eligible for a COR although I suppose it’s possible that some judge could grant it because technically it’s not eligible for a 1203.4 but the number of us have managed to get that as well. As a relates to your tier letter is that because you’re currently rated TBD or is it because you have not received your letter yet?

Mr. D
Any misdemeanor within 290 that has been dismissed
through PC 1203.4 can apply for a CA COR.
Including 288(c):However,it must be a misdemeanor
charge/conviction.
Any felony conviction of 288 PC cannot apply.
PC 17(b) reductions are not honored for 288’s.
Although reduced,they still consider it a felony
conviction for 290 relieve.
Not considered retroactive-PC 17(b)(e)
R

Mr .D
No tier assignment yet.

Mr .D
Maybe I should clarify…
Penal Code 4852 (Certificate of Rehabilitation)these codes are ineligible Pen. Code §§ 288a (c),286(c), 288,288.5, or 289(j).These are all felony crimes,except one wobbler-
288(c)1 or 2.When charged as a misdemeanor
and dismissed pursuant to PC1203.4 is eligible
to apply for a COR.There is high court law on
not barring a misdemeanor sex offense from a way
off the registry.To remedy this long standing
privilege, California legislators removed
288 s from there right to obtain a dismissal.
Thus closing the door on 288(c) who would
otherwise be in good standing to rehabilitate
out of 290.

107
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.