Long Beach, Failure to Register (PC 290(b)), Dismissed

In 1988, in Corvallis, Oregon, our client was convicted under Oregon law of rape by force and sodomy by force.  Our client was 28 years old at the time. 

After the conviction and serving time in Oregon state prison, he moved to Long Beach, where he registered as a sex offender with the Long Beach Police Department.  At the time, he lived at a half-way house for parolees and sex offenders.

One day in March 2011, as the police report stated, a Long Beach Police Department officer “randomly” pulled our client’s profile from the Megan’s Law website and looked into his registration status.  The officer could see our client was about three months late on registering, so the officer went to the half-way house and asked the manager if our client was present.  The officer intended to arrest him for failing to register.

The manager told the officer that our client had left the house about five months earlier, or in November 2010.

The officer then looked into the Violent Crimes Information Network (VCIN) and discovered our client had registered as a sex offender and was living in San Antonio, Texas. 

The Long Beach Police Department officer then called the San Antonio Police Department to ask if they knew when our client had first registered there.  The San Antonio officer answered that he did not know.

The Long Beach officer then prepared a police report, stating that our client was in violation of Penal Code § 290(b), which obligates a registered sex offender to notify the police within five days of when he or she plans to or does change his or her residence.  In this case, our client had not done this.

The Long Beach District Attorney’s office then filed a felony complaint against our client for violation of Penal Code § 290(b) and an arrest warrant was issued for our client in April 2011.  As the reader of this summary may know, the punishment for such a violation is sixteen months for low term, two years for mid-term and three years in state prison for high term.  Punishment is presumed to be to state prison under Penal Code § 1203(e)(4).

Twelve years later, in April, 2023, our client called Greg Hill & Associates, upon discovering there was an arrest warrant for him.  The client was now 64 years old and living in Arizona, not Texas anymore. 

The client spoke with Greg Hill and described how he believed the warrant arose.  In describing this, he mentioned that he had changed his name upon having so much difficulty getting a job as a registered sex offender. 

Greg explained that he had just handled a similar case for violation of Penal Code § 290(b) in the Long Beach Superior Court and why the District Attorney there dismissed the case.  The key to dismissal in that case was that our client had registered in Idaho, his new residence, within five days of leaving the Long Beach area.

In our client’s case in moving to Texas, our client did not have the proof of registration to show he registered in San Antonio within five days of leaving the Long Beach area.  In fact, he had no paperwork except his most current registration in Arizona and the order approving his name change. 

Greg commented that perhaps the prosecutor in Long Beach would dismiss the case in a similar manner because our client was now living outside California and appeared to be registering as obligated.  Moreover, the warrant was twelve years old and our client had no further violations of the law since 2011.

Greg just charged the client for one appearance in court because either the warrant would be recalled (and the case dismissed) or the warrant would remain outstanding and the case open.  Greg would appear without the client, which technically was not allowed under Penal Code § 977 without the client’s consent on the record to such an appearance on his behalf without him present.

Greg then had the case added to the calendar in the Long Beach Superior Court and discussed the case with the handling prosecutor.  The most important facts for the prosecutor in this case were that our client had been in Arizona for the last ten years and was current on his registration.  It also was relevant to him that our client was sixty-four years old and there seemed little to be gained by punishing him now for something that took place twelve years earlier.

The District Attorney then agreed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice (under Penal Code § 1385).  The judge then recalled and quashed the arrest warrant. 

Our client was very happy with this result.

For more information about the issues in this case, please click on the following articles: