Butler v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 105

Background

In 2000 Jerry Dale Butler pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and received two consecutive five-year deferred sentences; he later registered under Oklahoma's Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA).
In April 2010 the Sequoyah County district court expunged Butler's plea and court records pursuant to state expungement statute.
In June 2010 Butler sought a permanent injunction preventing the Oklahoma Department of Corrections from requiring continued SORA registration, arguing equal protection and due process violations because 57 O.S. § 582(E) exempts persons with out-of-state expungements but not Oklahoma expungements.
The Department moved to dismiss, contending Butler’s deferred sentence and expungement were unlawful under prior law and that § 582(E) is rational because out-of-state expungements leave no accessible record to support registration.
The district court found Butler had complied with his deferred sentence and that § 582(E) violated equal protection; it enjoined the Department and ordered Butler removed from the SORA registry.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Butler was required by law in effect at the time of his plea to register as an aggravated sex offender for life, and (2) § 582(E) passes rational-basis equal protection review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Butler is entitled to injunction relief removing him from SORA after expungement	Butler: expungement and plea bargain eliminate registration requirement; equal protection and due process violated by § 582(E)	Dept.: Butler’s expungement/deferred sentence was unlawful; law at plea time required lifetime registration for aggravated sex offenders; § 582(E) is rational	Denied. Court held law in effect at plea required lifetime registration and injunction was erroneous
Whether 57 O.S. § 582(E) violates equal protection by treating in-state expungements differently than out-of-state expungements	Butler: § 582(E) arbitrarily discriminates against Oklahomans with expunged deferred judgments	Dept.: Legislature rationally excluded out-of-state expungements to avoid onerous/impossible verification and protect public safety	Held constitutional under rational-basis review; § 582(E) has a conceivable legitimate purpose
Whether the district court properly relied on a March 2000 statute change to find an "unusual and narrow circumstance" excusing application of the SORA law	Butler/district court: recent amendment barred deferred judgments for sex offenses shortly before plea, creating unusual facts	Dept.: the prohibition on deferred judgments for sex offenses existed since 1993; March 2000 citation merely merged prior texts	Court rejected district court’s characterization; prohibition predated Butler’s plea and was not newly enacted in March 2000
Whether a plea agreement can override statutory registration requirements in effect at time of plea	Butler: plea agreement was a contract and compelled non-enforcement of registration	Dept.: plea agreements cannot override statutory requirements in effect at the time of plea	Court held plea cannot bargain away statutory obligations; registration requirement stands

Key Cases Cited

Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Oklahoma, 152 P.3d 165 (Okla. 2006) (standard of appellate review for legal questions)
Kluver v. Weatherford Hospital Auth., 859 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1993) (appellate plenary review of legal rulings)
Steltzlen v. Fritz, 134 P.3d 141 (Okla. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1976) (legislative line-drawing and rational-basis deference)
Ross v. Peters, 846 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1993) (rational-basis equal protection framework)
Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith, 148 P.3d 842 (Okla. 2006) (strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments)