Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Petition (Good News!)

Source: ACSOL

The Second Appellate District Court today issued a decision reversing a trial judge’s decision to deny a petition filed on behalf of a California person required to register.  As a result of this decision, the trial court judge must grant that petition which will in turn terminate the person’s requirement to register.

Today’s decision is the third appellate court decision reversing a trial court judge’s decision to deny a petition,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “In all three decisions, the appellate court found that the District Attorney failed to meet its burden, that is, to prove that the registrant poses a current threat to society.”

In today’s decision, the court noted that the registrant was convicted due to acts that took place more than 30 years ago.  The court also noted that the registrant has been a law abiding citizen after his release from prison 27 years ago.  Further, the court noted that the DA failed to provide evidence tending to show a significant risk that defendant was likely to reoffend.

The name of today’s decision is People v. Fragoso and its appellate case number is B328692.  A copy of that decision can be found in the link below.

Appeal – Court Decision – 2024

The trial court decision that was reversed today was issued by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Andrew Kim on December 13, 2022.  Today’s decision is not to be published in official reports.

Prior decisions in which appellate courts overturned trial court decisions denying a petition are People v. Franco, issued on January 25, 2024, and People v. Thai, issued on April 20, 2023.  Both the Franco and Thai decision have been certified for publication.

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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

Congrats! So glad of the People v Thai decision. It’s helped many.

Decisions like this give me hope for the rest of us!

Glad he is off the list.
Now maybe one day soon someone with a single misdemeanor from over 25 years ago with be able to petition to get off the list.
This whole system is F***ED!!!

I don’t see why the same reasoning wouldn’t apply to ALL sex crime, regardless of registration tier. A registrant that doesn’t commit another sex crime for three years or more after release from prison is probably less likely to commit one than a random person with no priors at all.

It’s also pretty telling that when challenged to show a registrant poses a current threat, all the state can ever do is complain about the original offense(s). And not just in California. I’d bet the same thing occurs in every state that has removal provisions.

Further, the state certainly cannot show what good the registry did in the the cases of the very, very small handful of recidivating registrants. Those stories are pretty few and far between, and I have yet to run across one that also alleges a registry violation in concurrence with the new sex crime charges. Accordingly, it’s perfectly reasonable to presume that recidivating registrants, rare as they are, were registry compliant when the new offenses were committed. I would think that would severely undercut the state’s claim that continued registration would enhance public safety.

That’s an argument I’d like to see made at the next petition for removal and ideally, the appeal if denied. I think it would be incredibly beneficial if a state supreme court acknowledged evidence that concurrent registry violations with recidivist sex crimes is (at most) extremely rare, if it has ever happened at all.

In this state, you are labeled according to the crime-this crime equals that label. There is no psychological evaluation. I have to register for the rest of my life irregardless that I have not reoffended since 1996 and there is NO way off of the registry. Every day I prove them wrong about me and that their so-called legal system is unfair and blind.
It’s good that some judges will side on the side of the law and the burden of proof instead of the prosecutorial staff who wants us to continue to pay, pay, pay.
Thanks be to God!!!!

I’m hoping the end game for all of this is to eventually get to the point where we can say ok, Mr. District Attorney this person is getting out of prison, prove that he is a threat to society. If you can’t do so, then no registry.

Congrats to those getting off the registry. Enjoy your freedom!

I have two FTR charges one misdemeanor and one felony, I’m interested to see what the DAs gonna try and say, my 24 year mandatory minimum registration time period is up in June.

I’m guessing the three cases with this decision all took place about the same time which is why there are three cases instead of the first one acting as case law?

Justice Served ! Way to go, its nice to see they system work. Hats off to the higher Court Judge for making the right decision. 🙏🏽

I really don’t think it should matter how long someone has been on the registry because if a person has been released from prison on parole, it means the parole board has determined the person does not pose a risk to the community. So once a person has been discharged from parole, how can any DA say the person poses a risk and must remain on the registry?

Here we all are fighting for what is basically are constitutional rights. Basic freedoms we should have and yet again today another mass shooting in Kansas City. At least 1 dead and 22 injured (9 of those are kids). Where is the calls for gun registration. I want to know who has these guns and why. Oh wait it’s only 290 people who need to register be locked up tracked counseled and given life sentences.

The American Law Institute, via Model Penal Code, states sex offender registration should only be limited to only three specific contact offenses, with no “risk assessment,” no public notification, and a 15-year automatic removal from the registry for those specific three crimes.

We’re all being scammed by our so-called “government.”

It’s time to start using our votes and money in better ways. Make them hear us