1

Filed 7/17/15 P. v. Peterson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHEN PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

C077461

(Super. Ct. No. SC061749A)

In November 1997, defendant Michael Stephen Patterson pleaded no contest to 

committing a lewd act on the body of a child of 14 years when defendant was at least 10 

years older (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1))1 and encouraging a minor to use 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §11353). In June 2014, several years after 

serving his stipulated sentence and completing parole, defendant petitioned the trial court 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

for a certificate of rehabilitation (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06) and an order relieving him of his 

obligation to register as a sex offender (§ 290.5). The trial court denied his petition.

Defendant acknowledges he is statutorily precluded from receiving a certificate of 

rehabilitation and relief from the registration requirement because of his conviction for 

committing a lewd act on the body of a child, but he contends this statutory bar violates 

equal protection principles. Specifically, he contends that sections 4852.01, subdivision 

(d) and 290.5, subdivision (a)(2) violate federal and state equal protection principles to 

the extent they preclude a person convicted of violating section 288, subdivision (c)(1) 

from obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation and relief from the section 290 sex offender 

registration requirement, while permitting someone convicted of the more serious offense 

of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a child age 10 

years or younger (§ 288.7) to obtain such relief.

In 2014, the Legislature remedied any inequity that may result from this disparate 

treatment by amending sections 290.5 and 4852.01 to preclude anyone convicted of 

violating section 288.7 from obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation or relief from the 

section 290 registration requirement. (§§ 290.5, subd. (a)(2)(Q), 4852.01, subd. (d); 

Stats. 2014, ch. 280, §§ 1, 3.) In light of this legislative action, as of January 1, 2015, 

disparate treatment of these two classes of individuals (those convicted of violating 

section 288 and those convicted of violating section 288.7) is no longer a possibility. 

Therefore, the sole issue raised by defendant in this appeal is moot.2 

 

2 The People argue the appeal is moot, though they do not present this argument under a 

separate heading, which would help call the argument to the court’s attention. Defendant 

did not file a reply brief, otherwise address this argument, or seek a dismissal of this 

appeal.
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

 BUTZ , J.

We concur:

 RAYE , P. J.

 HULL , J.