Termination of 290 Registration, Tier Two, 288(a) Bellflower

In 1987, our client, then age 23, was convicted in Sacramento Superior Court of violating Penal Code § 288(a), also known as committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14.

He was sentenced to 364 days in Sacramento County Jail and then placed on five years of formal probation. Upon termination of probation in 1992, he applied for and was granted expungement of his conviction.

His obligation to register for life (then) as a sex offender under Penal Code § 290 was not altered by expungement.

Our client then moved to Lakewood and began registering with the Lakewood Sheriff’s Department. He did so for the next 31 years.

In 2023, he read about Senate Bill 384, which allowed certain sex offenders to petition a judge for an order under Penal Code § 290.5, using judicial council form CR 415, to end his or her obligation to register as a sex offender if the person had registered for a minimum period of time, which varied by the severity of the offense.

A conviction for violation of Penal Code § 288(a) placed our client in Tier 2, which meant he was eligible to petition for termination of his 290 registration obligation after 20 years of doing so.

The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and discussed whether he was eligible to have his registration obligation terminated. The detective he registered with had given him a printout showing his conviction placed him in Tier 2.

Greg and the client spoke about the new law and Greg asked the client if he has suffered any convictions since 1987 for failing to register. The client said he had no such conviction, which was good because each such conviction would add three years to his 20 year minimum registration obligation.

Greg then described his experience in filing such petitions and how a District Attorney had the burden of showing that ending registration would endanger public safety. Greg commented that while it may seem like the mere act of registering did little to nothing to actually prevent someone from committing a new sex offense, District Attorneys did not regard registration as such merely administrative regulation.

Greg explained how he had one (so far) case where the District Attorney argued terminating registration would endanger public safety and the judge agreed, denying the petition to terminate registration. To Greg, he commented, this was unexpected and a grim reminder of how such petitions could not be regarded as “slam dunks,” much like expungement petitions.

Greg also asked the client about where the original conviction was suffered and who was the arresting agency, as the petition must be served upon the original arresting agency (for our client this was the Sacramento Police Department) and the original prosecuting agency (for our client this was the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office). We also had to serve the petition upon the current registering agency (for our client this was the Lakewood Sheriff’s Department) and the District Attorney’s Office for the courthouse nearest our client’s residence (the Bellflower Courthouse District Attorney’s Office).

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and our office took care of preparing the CR 415, the CR 416 and the CR 417. The Lakewood Sheriff’s Office then called Greg and confirmed receipt of the petition, which was a nice professional courtesy.

The court then set a hearing date and Greg appeared for the hearing in the Bellflower Courthouse.

The Lakewood Sheriff’s Office had served the sex offender checklist for our client to the District Attorney and the District Attorney’s Office advised the judge that it had no objection to termination of registration.

The judge, however, was not so cooperative as to just sign the order. She explained that for her own “judicial integrity,” she needed to look into the DA’s file on the nature of the underlying conduct that led to the conviction. The DA then showed the judge their file, which was provided by the Sacramento District Attorney’s office. The judge took a few minutes to read through the file while Greg nervously waited.

However, after a few minutes, the judge agreed to end our client’s registration and signed the order to terminate his registration obligation. The client, who had registered without fail for 36 years and was now 59 years old, was extremely happy with this.