Norwalk, Client Tier 2, Petition to Terminate 290 Denied

In 1993, our client’s daughter, age 12, went to the Whittier Police Department with her mom to report that her father had been molesting her since she was five.

Police were skeptical of the young lady, particularly since it appeared that the mother was coaching her daughter and the mother told police that she and our client were in the process of divorce.

Nonetheless, the Whittier Police Department diligently investigated the matter and our client admitted that much of the conduct (oral copulation, touching of his daughter’s crotch, having his daughter masturbate him to ejaculation) his daughter described was true.  At the time, our client was 36 years old.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed a complaint alleging six counts of violation of Penal Code § 288.5 (continual sexual abuse of a child under 14).  Each count represented one year of sexual abuse, defined as three or more lewd acts with a child or unlawful touching for three months or more.

Perhaps because our client was so cooperative with police, his attorney was able to resolve such a serious case with a “joint suspended,” which is remarkable given how this case would be treated 30 years later in 2023.  In 1993, however, our client entered into a plea bargain to two counts of violating Penal Code § 288(a), lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under age 14 with the intent to arouse, appeal to or satisfy the lust, passions or sexual urges of the child or the perpetrator.  He was sentenced to six years in state prison, suspended, and sentenced to 180 days in county jail and then placed on five years of formal probation.

Our client successfully completed probation with no violations and then registered as a sex offender under Penal Code § 290.5.

In 2023, however, he became aware of Senate Bill 384 having been passed and called Greg Hill & Associates to ask if his obligation to register could end.  Greg had handled a prior case with a client convicted of Penal Code § 288(a), so Greg knew it was a Tier 2 offense, meaning the client was eligible for termination of registration after 20 years of registration.

Greg discussed the underlying case from 1993 and our client’s subsequent criminal history, which was none. 

Greg then explained how such a petition is filed and served.  Greg explained that the registering agency, in this case the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Whittier Station, would prepare and file a sex offender checklist that would recommend or not recommend termination.  Greg explained that if the registering agency recommended termination, that was good, but it was not binding upon the judge.

Greg further explained that the District Attorney could oppose the petition on grounds that ending registration would “impose a significant risk on public safety.”  Greg regarded such an argument as somewhat academic insofar as merely registering does not ensure public safety.  The purpose of registering is to assist law enforcement in knowing where 290 registrants live, so that if there is an unsolved sex offense, law enforcement can consider 290 registrants quickly and easily.  However, registering certainly does not prevent a 290 registrant from committing a sex offense any more than registering to vote.

The client then hired Greg Hill & Associates to prepare, file and appear on the petition in the Norwalk Superior Court.

After we did so, the Norwalk District Attorney’s office served us with an opposition that attached the police report and argued that because the client’s crimes were committed over a seven year period and the victim was his own daughter, the judge should deny the termination of registration request.

Greg immediately recognized that such an argument did not present evidence to establish “community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.” Penal Code § 290.5(a)(2), (3).  This evidence was of the original crime 30 years ago, but had nothing to do with showing how community safety would be enhanced at all.

At about the same time that the People’s opposition was received, the Fourth Appellate District issued its ruling in People v. Thai, which is linked below.  In Thai, the Fourth Appellate District reversed a Riverside County Superior Court judge who ruled because the original crime was so terrible, petitioner should continue registering.  The judge may no findings that registration would promote public safety.

Greg therefore prepared and filed a reply memorandum attaching the Thai case and four letters of support for our client, explaining how he was a patient, peaceful and respectful person now.

The judge in Norwalk, however, seemed extremely nervous about the District Attorney’s office making such an opposition and understood they strongly wanted her to deny our client’s petition based on facts 30 years old.

There was no evidence of current danger to public safety.  However, the judge denied our client’s petition nonetheless, finding that our client had “poor impulse control” and ruled he could not bring the petition again for five years.

Greg argued that there was zero evidence that the law required the opposition to present which showed public safety would be endangered.  Greg also pointed out that the registering agency, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, submitted the sex offender checklist for our client and recommended ending his registration. 

Our client was devastated by the judge’s ruling.

We bring this summary to the reader’s attention to exemplify how some judges are unwilling to follow the law, particularly when a district attorney’s office is emotionally invested in a certain position.  Such judges are deathly scared about being reversed on appeal or losing re-election by being seen soft on crime, or sympathetic to a sex offender.  It is sad when the law is deliberately ignored, as it was here.