Opinion ID: 2774559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hofsheier and its Progeny

Text: In Hofsheier, supra, 37 Cal.4th 1185, the defendant claimed section 290’s provision for mandatory registration of persons convicted of nonforcible oral copulation with a minor 16 or 17 years of age (§ 288a(b)(1)) violated his rights under the federal and state constitutional equal protection clauses, because persons convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor of 16 or 17 years of age (§ 261.5) were subject to discretionary sex offender registration under former section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E) (now § 290.006).3 Hofsheier analyzed this equal protection claim in two steps. Hofsheier first assessed whether, for purposes of sex offender registration, those convicted of nonforcible oral copulation are “ ‘similarly situated’ ” to those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse. (Hofsheier, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1199.) Hofsheier answered this question in the affirmative, stating “[t]he only difference” between nonforcible oral copulation under section 288a(b)(1), which 3 Hofsheier concerned a prior version of section 290, which was repealed and reenacted in 2007. The discretionary registration provision that was included in that prior version now appears in section 290.006, which provides: “Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the [Sex Offender Registration] Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for the purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.” Unlike a person charged with a sex offense enumerated in section 290, a person charged with an offense subject to discretionary registration “may be able to stipulate in a plea bargain that the trial judge will not order registration.” (Hofsheier, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1198.) 6 mandates registration, and unlawful sexual intercourse under section 261.5, which does not, is “the nature of the sexual act.” (Hofsheier, at p. 1200.) Hofsheier next examined whether a “rational basis” supports the statutory classification mandating lifetime sex offender registration by a person convicted of nonforcible oral copulation with a 16-year-old minor (§ 288a(b)(1)), but not by a person convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old minor (§ 261.5). (Hofsheier, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1201.) While conceding there may be a rational basis to subject both categories of offenders to mandatory registration (id. at pp. 1202, 1207), Hofsheier could find no plausible basis — that is, no reasonably conceivable factual basis — for restricting application of the discretionary registration provision to the offenders convicted of unlawful intercourse (id. at pp. 1202-1204). Hofsheier therefore concluded that section 290’s registration mandate violated the equal protection rights of section 288a(b)(1) offenders. (Hofsheier, at pp. 1206-1207.) Although Hofsheier attempted to limit its holding to the factual circumstances before it, the Courts of Appeal have extended its application to additional nonforcible sex offenses covered by section 290. (E.g., People v. Thompson (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1430-1431 [Hofsheier extended to 36year-old defendant convicted of nonforcible sodomy with 17-year-old minor (§ 286, subd. (b)(1))]; Luansing, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 [30-year-old defendant convicted of nonforcible oral copulation of minor under 16 years (§ 288a(b)(2))]; Ranscht, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375 [18-year-old defendant convicted of nonforcible digital penetration of 13-year-old (§ 289, subd. (h))]; In re J.P. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1299-1300 [nonforcible oral copulation between 12-year-old juvenile and minor under 18 years (§ 288a(b)(1)), though minor in fact was under 14]; see also People v. Ruffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 669, 673-675 [Hofsheier extended to defendant convicted of 7 nonforcible oral copulation while incarcerated (§ 288a, subd. (e)), because prison guards convicted of nonforcible oral copulation with prisoners (§ 289.6, subd. (a)(2)) are subject to discretionary registration].)4 Consequently, Hofsheier’s equal protection analysis is denying significant effect to section 290. Here, the parties dispute Hofsheier’s expansion to the crime for which Johnson was convicted. Three Court of Appeal decisions squarely hold Hofsheier’s equal protection analysis logically applies to the offense of nonforcible oral copulation with a minor under 16 years (§ 288a(b)(2)). (Luansing, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 685; People v. Hernandez (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 641, 648-651; People v. Garcia (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 475, 481482.) One Court of Appeal decision, however, distinguished Hofsheier and upheld mandatory registration for a section 288a(b)(2) conviction where, as here, the ages of the offender and the victim rendered the offender additionally subject to prosecution for lewd conduct under section 288, subdivision (c)(1) (section 288(c)(1)). (Manchel, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115.) Manchel’s efforts to distinguish Hofsheier were criticized in Luansing, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at pages 683-685, and in cases involving offenses other than section 288a(b)(2). (E.g., Ranscht, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1373-1374; In re J.P., supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1297-1299.) 4 In People v. Kennedy (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 403, 409-410, moreover, the Court of Appeal indicated that equal protection claims involving section 290 not only require comparison between section 261.5 and the sex offense of which the subject defendant was convicted (there, § 288.2 [distribution of harmful matter to a minor]), but also require comparison and analysis of other sex offenses for which mandatory registration was judicially invalidated (e.g., § 288a(b)(1) [the offense in Hofsheier]). (See also People v. Singh (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 364, 366-367; People v. Thompson, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431.) 8 We need not resolve whether Manchel properly distinguished Hofsheier. As we shall explain, Hofsheier’s equal protection analysis is fundamentally flawed and deserves to be overruled.