THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, BETHEL, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA T E JUDGE PHI PPS

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ay 31, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 46 7 . ROYSTER v . STATE OF GEORGIA.

E LLI N G T O N , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

In 2 0 1 5

, J o h n Ro y s t er p et i t i o n ed fo r rel eas e fro m t he req u i r e m e n t t h at h e b e

reg i s tered as a s ex o f

f e n d e r t h at res u l t ed fro m a 1 9 9 3 co n vi ct i o n

. In op p o s i n g t h e

p et i t i o n

, th e St at e arg u ed

, i nt er al i a, t h at Ro y s t er fai l ed t o m eet o n e o f t h e st at u t o ry

req u i rem en t s fo r el i g i b il i ty

, s p eci fi cal l y

, t h a t t h e v i ct i m i n t h e u n derl y i n g s ex u al

o ffen s e h ad n o t b een p h y s ical l y res t rai ned du ri n g t h e co m m i s s i o n o f th e o ffen s e. 1 Th e

Su p eri o r Co urt o f Gwi n n et t Co u n t y d en i ed t h e p et i t io n b as ed o n a gen eral fi n d i n g t h at

Ro y s t er i s n o t el i gi bl e t o b e rel eas ed fro m t h e s e x offen d er reg i s t ry u n d er t h e

ap p li cab l e st at u to ry cri t eri a. T h ereaft er, t h is Co u rt g ran t ed Ro y s t er’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal , an d h i s fi rs t ap p eal was d o ck et ed as Cas e No . A1 6 A 1 7 1 1

.

1 See OCGA § § 1 7 -1 0 -6 .2 (c) (1 ) (F); 4 2-1 -1 9 (a) (4 ), (c) (2 ) (A).In t h at fi rs t ap p eal

, al t h o u gh t h e t r i a l co u rt h ad n o t s p eci fi ed in d en y i n g

Ro y s t er’ s p et i t i on wh i ch cri t eri o n o r cri t eri a h e had fai l ed t o s at i s fy

, we i n ferred t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt ag reed w it h t h e St at e t h at h e was i nel i g ib l e becau s e th e v i ct i m h ad b een

p h y s i cal l y res trai ned d u ri n g t h e co m m i ss i o n o f t h e o ffen s es

. Ro ys t er v. S t a t e of

Geo rg i a

, Cas e No

. A1 6 A1 7 1 1

, d eci d ed M arch 1

, 2 0 1 7

. W e d et erm i n ed t h at t h e o n l y

ev i d en ce s peci fi cal l y ci t ed b y t h e St at e t o d em o n s t rat e t h at th e v i ct i m h ad b een

phy s i cal l y res t rai ned d i d n o t rel at e t o t h e ag g rav at ed m o les t at io n ch arg es t h at res u l te d

i n co n v ict i on an d req ui red s ex o ffen d er reg i s t rat i o n ; rat h er, th e ev i d en ce o f p h y s i cal

res t rai n t was d irect l y rel at ed t o ch il d m o l es t at i on ch arg es o n wh i ch t h e ju ry h ad fo u n d

Ro y s t er n o t g u i l ty

. Id

. W e h el d t h at t h e d o ct ri n e of co ll at eral es t o p p el p rev en t ed t h e

t ri al co u rt fro m co n s i d eri n g ev i d en ce rel at ed to o ffen s es fo r wh i ch Ro y s t er h ad b een

acq u it t ed

. Id

. Acco rd i n g ly

, we v acat ed t h e o rd er an d rem an d ed t he cas e fo r t h e t ri al

co u rt t o d et erm i n e wh et h er Ro y s t er h ad ot h erwi s e s at is fi ed t h e s t at u t o ry req ui rem en t s

fo r el ig i b i l i t y . Id

.

Fo l l ow i n g rem an d

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er s u m m ari l y d en y i n g

Ro y s t er’ s p et i ti o n w i t ho u t s peci fy i n g an y s tat u to ry fact o r h e f a i l e d t o s at i s fy o r

o t h erwi s e m ak i n g an y fi n di n g s o f fact o r co n cl u s i o ns o f l aw. W e g ran t ed Ro y s t er’ s

s eco n d ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew

. I n t h is ap p eal

, Ro y s t er ag ai n co n t en d s

2t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab us ed it s d i s cret i o n i n d en y i n g th e p et i t i o n

. Fo r reas o n s t h at

fo l l o w , we affi rm

.

1

. In i t ial l y

, Ro y s t er fram es th e i s s ue as fo l l o ws : “ can a tri al co u rt d en y a m o t i o n

o n o n e s p eci fi c g ro u n d an d t hen

, aft er g et ti n g rev ers e d o n a p p eal

, d en y t h e m o t i o n

ag ai n b u t fo r a wh o l l y d i fferen t reas o n ? ” Un d er t h e c i r c u m s t an ces in t h i s cas e, t h e

an s wer i s “ y es

. ” W h en w e v acat ed t h e o rd er d en y in g Ro y st er’ s p et i t i o n, we ex p res s l y

l eft i t t o t h e tri al co u rt t o rev i s it t h e en t i ret y o f hi s p et i t io n

, w i th t h e p ro v i s o t h at t h e

co u rt n ot i m

p ro p erl y co n s i d er cert ai n ev i d en ce. 2 As we ex p l ai n ed i n g reat d et ai l i n t h e

2 As we ex p l ai n ed i n Cas e No . A1 6 A1 71 1 :

Gi ven th at t h e t ri al co u rt fai l ed t o ap p l y t he d o ct ri n e o f co l l at eral es t o p p el

wh en i t co n s i d ered ev i d en ce o f p h y s i cal res t rai n t rel at ed t o o ffen ses fo r wh i ch

Ro y s ter was acq u i tt ed an d

, i n d o i n g s o

, al s o fai l ed t o ap p l y OCGA § 4 2 -1 -1 9

(a) (4 ) u n der it s p l ai n l an gu ag e, it cl earl y erred i n d en y i ng Ro y st er’ s p et i t i o n

fo r rel eas e fro m t h e s ex -o ffen d er reg i s t ry o n t hi s b as i s. In s o h o l d i n g, we o f f er

n o op i n io n o n wh et h er Ro ys t er h a s o t h er wi se s a t i sf i e d t h e s t a tu t o r

y

r eq u i r emen t

s neces s a r

y f o r b ei n g r el ea s ed f

r o m t h e s ex-o

f f en der r eg i s t r

y.

Ra t h er

, we l ea ve t h es e ma t t er

s f o r t h e t ri a l co ur t t o co n s i d er o n r ema n d i n

d et er mi n i n g wh et h er Ro

ys t er i s el i

g i b l e f or s u ch

. Ou r h o l d in g i n t h is cas e i s

ex ceed i n g l y n a r ro w : t h e t ri al co u rt m ay n o t co n s i der ev i d en ce o f ph y s i cal

res t rai n t rel a t e d t o s ex u al o ffen s es fo r w h i ch Ro y s t er was acq u it t ed i n

d et erm i n i n g wh et h er h e i s el i g i bl e fo r rel eas e fro m t he s ex -o ffen d er reg i s t ry

. An d becau s e t h e t ri al co urt p erm i t t ed t h i s p r oh i b i t ed ev i d en ce t o t ai n t t h e

p ro ceed i n g s b el o w, we h av e no ch o i ce bu t t o vacat e an d rem an d fo r

reco n s i d erat i o n o f Ro y s t er’ s p et i ti o n i n a m an n er co ns i s t en t wi t h th i s op i n i o n

.

(Em ph as i s ad d ed .)

3earl ier ap p eal i n t h i s cas e, a p ers o n wh o p et i t i o n s t o b e rel eas ed fro m t h e req u i rem en t

t h at h e b e reg i st ered as a s ex o ffen d er m u s t sh o w th at h e h as “ co m p l et ed al l p ri s o n,

p aro l e, s u p erv i s ed rel eas e, an d p ro b at i on fo r t h e o ffen s e wh i ch req u i red reg i s t rat i o n,”

OCGA § 4 2 -1 -1 9 (a) (4 ), an d t h at h e m eet s s i x o t h er cri t eri a s et o u t i n OCGA § 1 7

-

1 0 -6

. 2 (c) (1 ) (A) t h ro u g h (F) (t h e fact th at t h e v ict i m was n ot p h y s i cal l y

res t rai n ed

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i on o f t he o ffen s e i s ju s t o n e o f t h os e cri teri a).

[T] h e b u rd en i s o n t he d efen d an t p et i t i o n i n g fo r rel eas e fro m t h e s ex

o ffen d er reg i s t rat i o n req u i rem en t s t o m ak e o u t a p ri m a faci e c a s e o f

en t i t l em en t t o rel eas e su ffi ci en t t o sh i ft t h e b u rd en t o t h e St at e t o s h o w

t h e co n t rary

. . . . [W ] h at am o u n t o f ev i d en ce wi l l ch an g e th e o nu s o r

b u rd en o f p ro o f i s a qu es t i o n t o b e d eci d ed i n each cas e b y t h e s o u n d

d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i on om i tt ed .) S t a t e v. R a n d l e

, 3 3 1 G a. Ap p

. 1

, 8 (2 ) (7 6 9 SE2 d

7 2 4 ) (2 01 5 ) (p hy s ical p reced en t o n l y ), aff’ d

, 2 9 8 Ga. 37 5 (7 81 SE2 d 78 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ). If

t h e p et i t io n er s h ows t h at h e h as s at i s fi ed ev ery o n e o f t h es e co nd i ti o ns

, t h en t h e t ri al

co u rt m ay co n s i d er wh et h er, b y a p rep o n deran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce, t h e i n d iv i d u al p o s es

a su b s t an t i al ri sk o f perp et rat i n g an y fu t u re dan gero u s s ex ual offen s e. OCGA § 4 2 -1

-

1 9 (f). In m ak i n g th i s det erm i n at i o n

, t h e t r i al co u rt m ay co ns i d er a n y ev i d en ce

4rel ev an t to t h e l i k el i h o o d t h at t h e p e t i t i o n er wi l l re-o ffen d

. OCGA § 42 -1 -1 9 (d ); 3

S t a t e v. Ra n d l e , 3 3 1 Ga. Ap p . at 4

.

It i s p l a i n t h at t h e p et i ti o n er’ s fai l u re t o s at i s fy even o n e o f th e req u i red

co n di t i o n s i s d i s q u al i fy in g

. It fo l l o ws t h at

, if th e t r i al co u rt fi n d s an y g ro u n d fo r

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n

, i t i s au t ho ri zed t o d en y t h e p et it i on

. In th at ci rcu m s t an ce, t here i s n o

s t at u t ory req u i rem en t th at t h e t ri al co u rt m ak e a d et erm i n at i o n as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g

el i g i b i l i t y fact o rs

. Ro y s ter co n t en d s t h at

, i f, “ in t h e l o wer c o u rt ’ s ey es

, [h e] was

p recl u d ed fro m t he rel ief h e so u g h t s o l el y b ecau s e t h e co u rt t h ou g h t t h ere was

p h y s i cal res t rai n t

, t he co n v ers e wo u l d al s o h av e t o b e t ru e: s i n c e ph y s i cal res t rai nt

was n o l on g er at i s su e,

. . . Ro y s t e r w a s en t i t l ed t o h av e hi s p et i t io n g ran t ed b y t h e

l o wer co u rt .” Th at m ay be s o, b u t t h e fi rs t o rd er den y i n g Ro y s t er’ s p et it io n d o es n ot

i n d i cat e t h at t he t ri al co u rt fo un d t h at h e was precl ud ed f r o m t h e rel i ef h e s o u g ht

s o l el y b ecau s e t h e co urt t ho ug h t t h ere was p h y s i cal res trai n t

. In th e p rev i o u s ap p eal

,

3 In co n s i d eri n g a p et i ti o n fo r rel eas e fro m s ex o ffen der reg i st rat i o n req u i rem en t s :

t h e co u rt m ay

co n s i d er: (1 ) An y ev i d en ce i n tro d u ced b y

t h e p et it i on er; (2 ) An y ev i d en ce i n tro d u ced b y

t h e d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey

o r s h eri ff; an d

(3 ) An y o t h er rel ev an t ev id en ce.

OCGA § 4 2 -1 -1 9 (d ).

5we em

p h as i zed t h at

, o n rem an d

, t h e t ri al co u rt w ou l d n e e d t o d et erm in e wh et h er

Ro y s t er h as s at i s fi ed t h e s t at u to ry req u i rem en t s n eces s ary fo r b ei n g rel eas ed fro m t h e

s ex -o ffen d er reg i s t ry

. 4

M o reo v er, t h e t ri al co urt i s v es ted w i t h th e di s cret io n t o d en y a p et i t i o n even

i f a p et i ti o n er s at i sfi es ev ery on e o f t he st at ut o ry el i g i b i l i t y fact o rs

, b as ed o n t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s as s es s m en t o f t h e ri s k o f t h e pet i t io n er co m m i t ti n g fu t u re dan g ero u s s e x u al

o ffen s es

, a det erm in at i o n t h e t ri al co u rt w o u l d n o t h av e reach ed i n ru li ng on Ro y s t er’ s

p et i t i o n t h e fi rs t t im e. See OCGA § 4 2-1 -1 9 (f); Y el ver t o n v. S t at e

, 3 0 0 G a. 3 1 2

, 3 1 8

(1 ) (7 9 4 SE2 d 6 1 3 ) (2 0 1 6 ). 5 Th e t ri al co u r t w as i n d eed au th o ri zed

, aft er d en y i n g

Ro y s t er’ s p et i ti o n o n o n e sp eci fi c g ro u n d an d b ei n g rev ers ed o n ap p eal

, t o d en y t h e

p et i t i o n a s eco n d t im e fo r a wh o l l y d i fferen t reas o n so lo n g as i t fo ll o wed t h i s Co urt ’ s

d i rect i v e n o t t o co n s i d er ev id en ce of p h y s i cal res t rai n t rel at ed t o t h e ju ry ’ s n o t -g ui l t y

fi nd i ng s

.

4 See n . 2 , s u p ra.

5 To g i v e o ne h y

p ot h et i cal

, t h ere m ay b e n o ev i d en ce t h at a p et it i on er h ad co m m i t t ed

“ a rel ev an t si m i l ar t ran s act i o n ,” y et t h ere m ay be s u bs t an t i al ev i d en ce t h at t he p et i t i on er

p l an s t o co m

m i t dan g ero u s s ex u al o ffen s es i n t h e fu t u re, su c h a s s t at em en ts t o o t h ers

,

p o s t i n g s o n s oci al m ed i a, et c.

62 . Ro y s ter co n t en d s t h at h e m et al l t h e req u i s i t e cri t eri a fo r rem o v al fro m t h e

reg i s try an d

, t h erefo re, t h at th e tri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s di s cret io n i n d en y i n g h i s p et i t i o n.

In t erm s o f t he s eco n d p ro n g o f t h e an al y s i s u n der OCGA § 4 2-1 -1 9

, t h e ri s k o f reo ffen d i n g

, Ro y s t er co n ten d s t h at t he ev i d en ce t h at h e d o es n o t p o se a s u b s t an t i al ri s k

o f p erp et rat i n g any f

utur e d an gero u s s ex u al o ffen s e i s o v erwh el m i n g

. As h e co n t en d s

,

t h e t ri al co u rt n ev er m ad e an ex p res s fi n d i n g t h a t h e pres en t s a s u bs t an ti al ri s k o f

fu t u re o ffen s es

, al t h o u g h t h e St at e d id p res en t arg u m en t on t h is i s s u e. Bu t

, al t h o u g h

OCGA § 4 2 -1 -1 2 (g ) (1 ) s p eci fi es t h e cri teri o n t h e s u p eri o r co u rt m u s t

co n s i d er i n d et erm i n in g wh et h e r t o g r a n t a p et i t io n fo r rel i ef fro m th e

s t at u t e’ s reg i st rat i o n req u i rem en ts

, n am el y

, t h e ri s k t h at t h e p et it i on er

wi l l reo ffen d

, . . . i t d o es no t s t at e t h at t h e s u p eri o r co u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g

o r d en y i ng a p e t i t i o n m u s t i n cl u de wri tt en fi n d i ng s of fact o r

co n cl u s i o n s o f l aw. W e h av e n o a u t h o ri t y t o read s u ch a req u i rem en t

i n t o t h e s tat u t e.

(Ci t at i o n s om i t t ed .) In r e Ba u co m

, 29 7 G a. Ap p

. 6 6 1, 6 6 3-6 6 4 (2 ) (6 7 8 SE2 d 1 1 8 )

(2 0 0 9). 6

6 See Ga r mo n v. S t a t e

, 3 1 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 3 4, 6 3 5 (2 ) (7 3 2 SE2 d 2 8 9 ) ( 2 0 1 2 ) (“ Th e

req u i rem en t t h at a t ri al co u rt co n s i d er cert ai n fact o rs i n m ak i n g a d is cret i o n ary ru l i n g d o es

n o t n e ces s ari l y m ean t h at t he co u rt m u s t ex p res s l y art i cu l at e i n i t s ru l i n g i t s s p eci f i c

fi n d i n g s o n t h o se fact o rs .”) (ci t at i on o m i t t ed ); Br ya n t v. St at e

, 2 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. 23 4

, 2 3 6 (5 9 3

SE2 d 7 0 5 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (Ot h er t h an i n ru l i n g o n a d e m a n d fo r s peed y tri al

, “ a s u m m ary o rd er

en t ered b y a t ri al co u rt g en e ral ly i s s u ffi ci en t t o en ab l e t h e ap pel l at e co u rt t o d et erm i n e

7W h i l e Ro y s t er d i d p res en t s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n

o f ri sk d ep en d ed

, i n t er al i a, o n i t s as s es s m en t o f t h e cred i b i l i t y o f Ro y s t er an d o f t h e

ex p ert wh o t es t i fi ed v ery fav o rab ly o n h i s beh al f reg ard i n g a ri s k as s es s m en t

ex am i n at i o n an d an al y s i s b y t h e ex p ert

. As an ap p el lat e co urt

, we accep t t h e

cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at i o n s o f t h e t ri al co urt

. 7 Reg ard l es s h ow we m ay h av e ev al u at ed

t h e ri sk

, i n m at t ers c o m m e n d e d t o th e d i s cret i on o f t h e tri al co u rt

, we wi l l n ot

s u b s t i t u t e o u r ju dg m en t fo r t h at o f t h e t ri al co u rt

. 8 Ro y s t er h as n ot s h o wn a m an i fes t

ab u se o f d i s cret i o n

, an d we t herefo re affi rm

.

Ju d g men t a f f ir med

. Bet h el

, J., a n d S en i o r Ap p el l a te Ju d

g e Her ber t E. Ph i

pp s

co n cu r

.

wh et h er t h e b ro ad d i s cret i o n v es t ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt h as b een ab u s ed

. ”); Ch a n g e v. S t a t e

, 1 5 6 G a

. A p p

. 3 1 6

, 3 1 9 (6 ) (2 7 4 SE2 d 7 1 1 ) (1 9 80 ) (A t ri al co u rt i s no t req u i red t o m ak e

fi n d i n g s o f fact an d co n cl us i on s o f l aw i n a cri m i n al cas e.); OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 2 (a) (“ [I] n al l

[ci vi l ] n o n

ju ry t ri al s i n co u rt s o f reco rd

, t h e co u rt s h al l u p o n r e q u es t o

f a n y p a r t y ma d e

p r i o r t o s u ch r u l i n g

, fi n d t h e fact s s p eci al l y an d sh al l s tat e s ep arat el y i t s co ncl u s i o n s o f

l aw.”) (em

p h as i s s u pp l i ed ).

7 S t a t e v. Ab b o t t

,

_ Ga.

_ (1 ) (Cas e No

. S1 7 A 1 5 8 3

, deci d ed M arch 1 5

, 2 0 1 8 ); St a t e

v. O gu n s u yi

, 3 0 1 Ga. 2 8 1

, 2 8 3 (8 0 0 SE2 d 5 4 2 ) (2 0 1 7 ); St a t e v. Pl a i n es

,

_ Ga. Ap p

.

_ (1 )

(Cas e No . A1 7 A1 4 3 3, d eci d ed M arch 1 5

, 2 0 1 8 ).

8 At l a n t a Bu s i n es s Vi d

eo

, LLC v. Fa n Tr a ce, LLC

, 3 2 4 Ga. A p p

. 55 9

, 5 6 0 (7 5 1 SE2 d

1 6 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Ca bey v

. DeKa l b Med i ca l Ct r.

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 31 3

, 3 1 4 (3 ) (5 5 5 SE2 d 7 4 2 )

(2 0 0 1 ).

8