Court Opinion

ID: 9795147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:21:23.955107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:26.580246
License: Public Domain

OPINION
STEWART, Judge.
John M. Nunley, Kenneth Cutler, and Robert Krause, Jr., were separately convicted of failing to comply with the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA)1 Each defendant moved to dismiss his case, primarily arguing that ASORA did not apply to him because he did not fit into any of the three subsections of former AS 12.63.010(a). District Court pro tem Judge Paul E. Olson denied their motions, and each defendant entered a no contest plea, preserving the right to appeal this issue.2 We consolidated *1114these appeals for purposes of oral argument and decision. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the convictions.
Facts and proceedings
Nunley, Cutler, and Krause each had been convicted of sex offenses, sentenced, and subsequently released from their probation before August 10, 1994, the effective date of ASORA. Each had been found guilty of a sex offense in 1990; Nunley had been released from probation in 1993, while Cutler and Krause had been released in 1992. In 1998, each was charged with violating ASO-RA for not registering as a sex offender; each entered a no contest plea in 1999. Their cases were then stayed pending this court's disposition of Patterson v. State.3
Discussion
The appellants contend that while ASORA directs some classes of convicted sex offenders to register, and provides the time and the manner for doing so, former AS 12.63.010(a) does not specifically address convicted sex offenders who were unconditionally released prior to August 10, 1994. They argue that former AS 12.68.010(a) provided registration deadlines for only three groups of offenders, none of which includes the appellants. They conclude that either the legislature did not intend to require offenders like them to register under ASORA, or, alternatively, that ASORA is unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide them with adequate notice that they had a duty to register.
We disagree with the appellants' interpretation. The pertinent part of former AS 12.63.010 provides that:
(a) A sex offender who is physically present in the state shall register as provided in this section. The sex offender shall register within
(1) seven days of release from an instate correctional facility;
(2) seven days of conviction for a sex offense if the sex offender is not sentenced to a term of incarceration; or
(3) 14 days of becoming physically present in the state, except the sex offender shall register within seven days of becoming physically present in the state if the sex offender
(A) is a probationer or parolee being supervised by the state as the receiving state under AS 83.86.110-33.36.120; or
(B) has been released from an out-of-state correctional facility where the sex offender was serving a term of incarceration for a sex offense conviction in this state.4
The language of former AS 12.63.010(a) makes it clear that "[all] sex offender[(s] who [are] physically present in the state shall register...." Likewise, for purposes of former AS 12.68, the term "sex offender" means "a person convicted of a sex offense in this state or another jurisdiction regardless of whether the conviction occurred before, after, or on [the effective date]" of ASORAS5 The only offenders excused were those "with only one conviction for a sex offense who [had] been unconditionally discharged from that sex offense before July 1, 1984[.]"6 Based on these various provisions, we conclude that the legislature intended to impose a duty to register under ASORA on conviet-ed sex offenders like the appellants. Moreover, we conclude that ASORA provided such sex offenders with sufficient notice that they were required to register.
We also conclude that the legislature intended to criminalize the failure to register under ASORA when, as part of the ASORA legislation, it passed former AS 11.56.840.7 And, as mentioned above, the only sex offenders excepted from ASORA's registration requirements were those who had been un*1115conditionally discharged for a single sex offense conviction before July 1, 19848 Accordingly, we conclude that sex offenders physically present in Alaska who had been released from probation before the effective date of ASORA still were required to comply with the general duty to register set forth in former AS 12.68.010(a). Likewise, we conclude that the legislature intended to subject convicted sex offenders such as the appellants to criminal penalties under former AS 11.56.840 for failing to comply with ASORA's general duty to register.
Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

. See former AS 12.63.010 (1988) and former AS 11.56.840 (1989).

. See Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1255-57 (Alaska 1974).

. 985 P.2d 1007 (Alaska App.1999).

. New registration deadlines went into effect on January 1, 1999. See AS 12.63.010.

. Former AS 12.63.100(2) (1998).

. Ch. 41, § 12, SLA 1994.

. Former AS 11.56.840 (1998) provided:
A person who knowingly fails to (1) register, (2) file the written notice of change of address, or (3) file the annual written notice or statement, as required in AS 12.63.010, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

. See ch. 41, § 12, SLA 1994.