Torrance, Termination of Registration Obligation, 311.11(a)

In 2004, our client’s girlfriend fabricated a domestic violence case against our client and told the Hawthorne Police Department that our client also made criminal threats, threatened her with a firearm and that he had child pornography on his laptop computer.  Our client was 36 years old at the time.

A misdemeanor criminal complaint was filed against our client in the Torrance Superior Court and the case went to a jury trial.  The jury found our client not guilty of all charges except the one charge of possessing images of minors engaging in or simulating sexual acts (Penal Code § 311.11(a)). 

The judge in Torrance then sentenced our client to three years of informal probation with an obligation to perform ten days of community service and register for life as a sex offender under Penal Code § 290.

In 2017, the California State Legislature passed into law Senate Bill 384 and Governor Newsom signed it into law.  The new law reclassified all registered sex offenders in California as Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 and placed new registration period requirements for each registered sex offender, based on their tier level classification.

Our client was placed in Tier 1, which meant he could petition to have his obligation to register as a sex offender terminated after ten years of registration. 

His registration obligation, however, was extended by one year because he had one conviction for failing to register after his obligation to register arose.

Our client read online about SB 384 and read that Greg Hill & Associates had filed several such petitions under Penal Code § 290.5 for termination of the 290 registration obligation, so he called Greg Hill & Associates.

The client arranged for an in-person meeting with Greg, which meant well after 5:00 p.m. because our client’s work operating an online marketplace where his company sold clothing, pet supplies, and new age mindfulness products.  Our client also operated a dog rescue service.  Some days were very busy for him.

The client explained the underlying case leading to his conviction for violating Penal Code § 311.11(a) and how he had once failed to register after moving from one apartment to another.  The client had no other convictions before or after 2004.

Greg then explained how the petition to end one’s 290 registration obligation proceeded and how the biggest obstacle he had experienced was law enforcement failing to prepare and submit the sex offender checklist to the prosecuting agency.  Greg explained how some police and sheriff’s departments seemed unaware of their duties after being served with the petition to end 290 registration, so Greg often ended up calling up the detective in charge of our client’s registration to let him or her know that we awaited their response.

In our client’s case, the client stated that his reporting officer was extremely diligent and that he would ask her to keep an eye out for his petition so that she would respond promptly so the judge assigned to his petition could grant it quickly.

Greg stated he had not had a prosecutor oppose the petition yet, but explained how the prosecutor could oppose the petition based on a belief that ending registration would impose a danger upon the public.

The client then hired Greg Hill & Associates and our office prepared the CR-415 petition to terminate, submitting it with a short memorandum of points and authorities to explain our client’s reasons for asking to have his 290 registration obligation ended.

We then filed the CR-415 judicial council form in the Torrance Courthouse and served a copy of it to the Hawthorne Police Department and the Torrance District Attorney’s Office.  Surprisingly, the Hawthorne police detective assigned to supervise our client’s registration did submit the sex offender checklist almost immediately.  The client was right – she was diligent and knew what to do.

The court then set a hearing date and Greg appeared in court for the client for the hearing.  The District Attorney’s office did not oppose the petition and the judge granted the request to terminate our client’s registration obligation. 

The client was very happy with this ruling.