Torrance Court, End to Sex Offender Registration, Tier 2

Our client, age 71, had been convicted in Torrance Superior Court in 1988 of violating Penal Code §§ 289(b) (“Sexual Penetration with a Foreign Object on a Victim Incapable of Giving Consent”), 286 (“Sodomy of a Victim Incapable of Giving Consent”), 261(a)(1) (formerly § 261(1)) (“Rape of a Victim Incapable of Giving Consent”) and 286(b)(1) (“Sodomy of a Person under Age 18”).

It was a horrific series of convictions when he was 37 years old and after serving a three year sentence in prison, he had registered with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department without any failures. He sorely resented having to register for life and wished he could end this obligation. He was always told that it was a lifetime obligation.

After Senate Bill 384 passed, the deputy sheriff who registered him told him about this, but told him she thought he would not be eligible. She was wrong. Actually, unbeknownst to him or the deputy sheriff, under Senate Bill 384, our client’s convictions actually were classified as Tier 2 and obligated him to register for at least 20 years.

After SB 384 passed in 2018, our client thought he would be Tier 3, a lifetime sex offender registrant, but called Greg Hill to ask what tier level he would be. Greg agreed with the client that the convictions were most likely classified as Tier 3, but recommended that the client confirm this with the Department of Justice, just in case they were actually Tier 2.

The client did so and was just as surprised as Greg to be advised that he was classified as a Tier 2 registrant, which meant he possibly could have his obligation to register ended by a judge, as long as the judge determined that ending his registration would not impose a danger upon the public.

Greg then explained to the client how a petition to terminate one’s obligation to register was processed and decided. The first step was to file the judicial council forms CR-415, CR-416, CR-417 and CR-418 in the court where the registrant resides and serve both the prosecuting agency for the original conviction and the law enforcement agency with which the registrant registers. If the registrant has moved, the registrant must serve the district attorney’s office for the courthouse where the petition is filed as well.

Greg explained that the law enforcement agency with which the client currently registers will then complete a “Petition Checklist” and file it with the court where the petition is filed and send it to the prosecuting agency for that court.

Upon receipt of the Petition Checklist, the prosecuting agency will prepare and file the CR-417, which is the “Response by District Attorney to Petition for Termination of Sex Offender Registration.” The prosecuting agency will state therein if it opposes or does not oppose termination.

The criminal clerk’s office will then set a hearing or the judge will simply rule on the petition in chambers. Greg explained that a hearing would be set if the judge planned on denying the petition and wanted the registrant to have an opportunity to be heard why the judge should grant the petition. Some judges, Greg explained, would always set a hearing, just out of habit, so if a hearing was set, that may not mean too much. If the judge intended to grant the petition, he could do so without a hearing and rule in chambers by simply signing the order and mailing it to our office.

In our client’s case in Torrance, we filed the petition, the CR-416, the CR-417 and the CR-418 in the Torrance Superior Court, which was both the court where our client was convicted and the court for the area of his current residence, and served it on the Torrance District Attorney’s Office, which was the prosecuting agency for his conviction and the prosecuting agency for his area of residence. We also served it on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office.

In this case, it took the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office four months to prepare and mail out the Petition Checklist. Greg checked in on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office and the detective with whom our client registered. She was just very busy, she explained.

Eventually, however, she indeed did prepare and send the checklist in to the Torrance District Attorney. The detective stated in the Petition Checklist that there was no opposition to ending our client’s registration obligations.

The District Attorney for Torrance, after receiving this, then filed the CR-417 stating they did not oppose termination.

The judge in this case then did set a hearing and at the hearing, granted the petition, which was a big relief for our client.

For more information about SB 384 issues, please click on the following articles: