Source: ACSOL
The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) has issued guidelines regarding the reassignment of tiers for those convicted of an attempted offense. According to CA DOJ, there are more than 3,000 registrants who have been convicted of an attempted offense.
The guidelines state that the majority of registrants who will be re-tiered are those who have been assigned to tier 3. They noted, however, that not all registrants assigned to tier 3 due to a conviction of an attempted offense will be reassigned to tier 1 but could instead be reassigned to tier 2. Registrants assigned to Tier 3 are not eligible to petition for removal.
According to the guidelines, CA DOJ will attempt to notify all persons whose tiers have been reassigned via U.S. mail. The guidelines state that registrants can obtain their new tier assignments from the office where they register by requesting a copy of their two-page Form 8050, Proof of Current Registration.
The guidelines acknowledge that CA DOJ is re-tiering registrants convicted of an attempted offense as the result of litigation filed by ACSOL, including a judgment issued by Los Angeles Superior Court in March 2024.
CA DOJ Guidelines - 202412062024
This is a huge win by ACSOL for registrants! Congratulations, ACSOL and all those who qualify to be moved to a lower tier.
Brick by brick………….
Congrats @ACSOL for this victory of balancing the scales a bit more and giving an off-ramp possibility to those who can be reassigned.
I don’t speak 290 language, does this mean PC288.4(b) qualifies?
This is great news! Hoping all attempted offenses will eventually be moved to Tier 1. Are there any plans to challenge those who are left on Tier 2 despite it being an Attempted offense?
Ditto!
Can someone please help confirm if PC 288.3(a) qualifies for this new tier assignment?
It seems obvious to me that under this law in which we’re under that we’re being singled out from among other so-called ex-criminals who have done their time as we have but has no levels and or degrees of levels of they are pass crimes. But here we are being singled out from all other criminals and are still being punished. Crime is Crime. Why are our crimes any different? And then it’s being demonstrate through our so called legal constitutional rights are being violated, they in essence are saying, “We don’t have any constitutional rights”. It seems to me that this isn’t legal it’s personal, and we are begging them to cut us some slack. We show the courts many upon many cases that the constitution depicts four square on point that this is what’s happen to us, and they in essence say you don’t have any right. While some of the American oligarchs have them in the judges in their pockets. May God Continue to Bless and Keep His Hedge Around You All “In Jesus Name” Amen.
The Information Bulletin from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Regarding Tiering Placement of Attempted Sex Offense Convictions reads in part: “The majority of registrants who will be re-tiered are those who were assigned to tier 3 for a conviction of an attempted applicable offense enumerated in Penal Code section 290, subdivision (d)(3)(C)…” Included in section 290, subdivision (d)(3)(C) is PC 220, which is “…assaults another with INTENT to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of… shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.”
Two, four, or six years are the lower terms.
Through further research of the legal exclusions and exceptions, it appears that only the PC
220 offenses involving “mayhem” would be excluded from the re-tiering policy. Yet, when I listened to the 11/23/24, monthly meeting recording, I heard Janice say that INTENT offenses were not the same as attempts, and so INTENT offenses would not be re-tiered.
The recording was made on 11/23/24, and the disclosure of the bulletin from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) was posted on this website on 12/6/24 – twelve days after
the recorded meeting.
If Janice reads this post, my question is, does the bulletin change your comment that INTENT
offenses were not the same as attempts, and so INTENT offenses would not be re-tiered?
Granted, they are not the same; but the bulletin says what it says, and it says, 290, subdivision (d)(3)(C), and (C)(iii), is Section [PC] 220.
I’m over 30 years on the registry with no re-offenses; so, maybe I’m just being overly
optimistic.