Court Stops First Challenge to CA Tiered Registry Law

A judge in Sacramento Superior Court today stopped the first challenge to the Tiered Registry Law.  The action was taken during a virtual hearing held before Judge Shama Mesiwala.

The case in question involved a challenge to the assignment of individuals convicted of Penal Code Section 288(c)(1) to Tier 3, the highest tier.  The basis of the challenge was the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

“Today’s decision will be appealed,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “Until this decision can be overturned, individuals convicted of PC 288(c)(1) will continue to be assigned to Tier 3 and must register for life.”

According to the court’s decision, individual convicted of PC 288(c)(1) are not similarly situated to individuals convicted of PC 288(a) although both offenses involve identical conduct.  Under the current language of the Tiered Registry Law, individuals convicted of PC 288(a) that involves a victim under the age of 14 are assigned to Tier 2, however, individuals convicted of the same conduct with a victim who is 15 or 16 are assigned to the highest tier (tier 3).  Because these individuals are not similarly situated, the equal protection does not apply, according to that decision.

The court’s decision also focused upon the requirement of a 10-year age gap for those convicted of PC 288(c).  In its decision, the court ignored the fact that two additional offenses requiring the same 10-year age gap (PC 289(i) and PC 286(c)(1) are assigned to Tier 1 and Tier 2, respectively.

“It is possible that today’s decision is based in part upon the fact that this is the first challenge to the Tiered Registry Law,” stated Bellucci.  “If an appellate court agrees with this challenge, lower courts will follow that precedent.”

Law Office of Janice M. Bellucci

Tentative Ruling – Aug 2021

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
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

Thank you for the update Janice and I know you will continue to fight this.

First salvo, thank you Janice and Team!

“Hmmm, let’s see”, says the judge, “Not similarly situated?”
Judge sees 288(c)(1) is on Tier 3….and 288(a) is on Tier 2.
“There! It’s obvious! They’re not similarly situated – they’re on different Tiers! Case dismissed! Next.”
🙄 God help us! 🙄

Every now and then I must remind myself that “The law is an ass.”
And I remember the Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell were both prosecutors and I’m certain of the truth in that saying.🙄

I’m glad this will be appealed because it doesn’t make any sense why the courts did not see it as an equal protection unless they don’t read for nuance.

if a) is tier 2 involving 14 year olds or younger,
… then b) involving 15 and 16 year olds should also be tier 2.

Instead, b) involving 15 and 16 year olds are placed in a higher tier, tier 3. Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense.

go get ’em, Janice!

Well the Defendants in this case we’re really holding onto that 10 year age Gap. I thought it was really interesting to see how the courts in California viewed the new tear system and how they felt about 288(a) offenders.
I agree 288(a) crimes are way more severe than 288(c)(1) i guess the age difference between the victim and the offender plays a bigger part in in these decisions then I thought.

Good luck

Trying to stay hopeful, but it is getting harder and harder to do so with all the continued push back by some courts on gains in other areas.

Really thinking the best way to attack this is to change legislation and public opinion versus cases law as precedent is killing us.

My reading is that ACSOL won the similarly situated and equal protection argument, but lost on the rational basis. To paraphrase, only a crumb need be rational. The court also left open the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Is there any research on 25-year-olds being more inclined towards recidivism? Put another way, since the overall recidivism stats for all offenses are so low, wouldn’t the 288(a) and 288 (c) offenders both be very low in recidivism? The government’s argument is that 288 (c)s would commit new offenses, but 288 (a)s would not, as much. Or something.

But even if more recidivism comes from 2(a)s, that wouldn’t necessarily cancel out the rational crumb. On the other hand, maybe the government is arguing that 288 (a) should be a tier 1.

What an arbitrary distinction. So molesting a 14 year old is somehow less severe than with a 15 or 16 year old? Absurd.

Man, I am not even going to comment on this suit other than good luck. How about a suit demanding individual dynamic risk assessments before categorizing and projecting people into levels of dangerousness thru the tiered registry.

It does seem possible the virginity of the question in complaint is the cause for rejection. Experience counts in that equation and often circuit courts employ lawyers (judges) who’ve a lesser grip on the key necessities. Not all lawyers are motivated equally to seriously challenge the null. Without the most obvious and discernable facts otherwise most cases are punted like this one. Equal protection is a tricky thing to prove because congressional intent (10 yr opposed life) in statute enjoys presumptive good in effect. But there is another issue here. It rests in the various purposes of the standardized waiver. Because registration, like immigration-crime deportation law, are still deemed civil and regulatory regimes the ability to contest minutiae must be properly sustained upon conviction. Most of the time ( 95%) it has been waived. I refer most to Kentucky v Padilla to highlight the point. In Padilla: a coke dealer suffers a felony hit by plea\conviction but in entering plea was not informed of the deportation( by the record) potential( very likely), so Padilla catches a break by the courts neglect to inform him ***and his representation***of civil small stuff violated equal protection. However this doesn’t close the issue completely, but it does force you to do so ( prove unequal treatment) by the statutes alone, or until you find a defendant and case without the state having a standardized waiver in the record.

Gov. Newsom and nacny Pelosi have two of the most influential families in San Francisco the two families are linked together through business and politics and some by blood and marriage.
Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom also go way back Kamala worked with Gavin’s ex wife at the District Attorney’s office for decades.
Kamala Harris’s little sister also has ties to the White House she was one of three senior policy advisers for Hillary Clinton, so i know the politicians in Washington hear us knocking they see us the just don’t wanna answer the door, trust me V.P Kamala Harris and the California DOJ knows who Janice Bellucci is.
The Defendants in this case were very cocky because they know they got the court’s and legesters on their side, can you imagine if the plaintiffs had over 104.000 people on their side, standing outside the Superior Court during this hearing the Defendants would’ve had to kissing the plaintiffs azz in the name of public safety.

Good luck

Oh my gosh I’m a tier 3 in all this verbal abuse epic. Lets see.. theirs labeling, numbering, tier status, genius status, fool status, wise men and even idiots. So were does all this registry status come from.” If a man thinkest” I believe that is still in the bible as I’m sure its not in Websters dictionary.

 It is said Actions speak louder than words, yes there is good actions and bad actions. Even classifying someone as judge, jury, or prosecutor can be a human challenge. Sure war is Hell and for many this registry is a type of hell to some.. Many want to figure out all this registry by man’s understanding or some quantum theory or does anyone even take time to read warnings or instructions. Intimidation is a key factor. Sex is only a motivator.

Assigning Tiers? Well many court systems should just as well assign brain matter. Can we all say this is like a 21st century Catcher in the Rye game via a computer or some blunder of man’s device. Talk about a version of truth. Even this tier assignment reeks of a sham type justice.

Can anyone point me in the direction to find this courts decision online so I can print out the decision for my own personal file. My 288 (c) 1 was reduced to a misdemeanor and I’ve been registered for 20 years. I’d like to collect any and all info about this issue to keep up to date with hopes this Tier 3 288(c) 1 issue moving forward. I found the lawsuit Janice filed Feb 2021, I can’t seem to find the court’s decision. Thank you in advance who could steer me in the direction to find out more about this issue