Opinion ID: 1125205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: louisiana's interpretation of megan's law

Text: Louisiana's appellate courts have split on the issue of whether courts and penal authorities may enforce these statutes retroactively. First, Louisiana's appellate courts, without much elaboration, have disapproved of retroactive application of LA. REV.STAT. ANN. § 15:542. See State v. Bishop, 96-694 (La.App. 5 Cir.12/30/96), 686 So.2d 1053, 1055 (holding that retroactive application of the statute violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto application of laws.); State v. Calhoun, 94-2568 (La.App. 1 Cir.2/23/96), 669 So.2d 1359, 1363 (holding that the statute's requirement that the application of the registration and notification to offenders who committed their crimes before enactment of the statute would be violative of the ex post facto provisions in the United States and Louisiana Constitutions.); State v. Linson, 94-0061 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95), 654 So.2d 440, 446 (holding that because the notification provisions were not in effect when defendant committed the instant offense, the court vacate[s] those conditions.); Lee v. State, 96-0108 (La. App. 1 Cir.9/27/96), 681 So.2d 1020, 1022-23, writ denied, 97-1016 (La.4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1099 (holding that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may not require registration under LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 15:542 of offenders who committed crimes before enactment of the statute); State v. Payne, 633 So.2d 701, 702 (La. App. 1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0291 (La.6/3/94), 637 So.2d 497 (holding that requiring this defendant to register pursuant to Revised Statutes 540-549 is an unconstitutional violation of the ex post facto provisions in the United States and Louisiana Constitutions.). On the other hand, Louisiana's appellate courts have split on whether the notice provisions of LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 895(H), those who are placed on probation, may be applied retroactively. The Fourth Circuit's decision in Hutchinson, one of the cases presently before us, holds that the retroactive application ... of the notice provisions of LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 895(H) does not violate the ex post facto prohibitions of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Hutchinson, 764 So.2d at 1142. Other reported appellate decisions, however, have reached the opposite conclusion. See Linson, 654 So.2d at 446 (holding that because the notice provisions were not in effect when defendant committed the instant offenses, the court vacate[s] those conditions.); State v. Babin, 93-1361 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/20/94), 637 So.2d 814, 824 (holding that [b]ecause the provisions of article 895 H were not in effect at the time of the commission of defendant's crime, their application to defendant would be [a] ... violation of the ex post facto provisions in the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions.); Payne, 633 So.2d at 702 (holding retroactive compliance with either R.S. 15:542 or La.C.Cr.P. art. 895(H) is a violation of the ex post facto provisions of the constitution). In stark contrast, the appellate courts unanimously agree that LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 15:574.4(H), those who are paroled, may be applied retroactively. See Lee v. State, 681 So.2d at 1022-23 (holding that unlike La.R.S. 15:542, La.R.S. 15:574.4 does not create a new offense for a sex offender's failure to comply; accordingly, retroactive application is permissible); State v. Sorrell, 656 So.2d at 1045-48 (holding that because [t]he law in effect at the time of a prisoner's release governs the terms of that release, ex post facto application is permissible).