239 Cal. App. 4th 1125
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2000 Crofoot pled guilty in Washington to "communication with a minor for immoral purposes of a sexual nature" after initiating an internet chat with a 10-year-old and sending a photo depicting an erect penis; he was placed on probation and required to register in Washington.
- Crofoot later moved to California; California law (§ 290, § 290.005) requires out-of-state convictions that would be sexual offenses in California to trigger lifetime registration.
- In 2014 a Washington court terminated Crofoot's Washington registration after 10 years under Washington law; Crofoot argued California must give full faith and credit to that order.
- Crofoot sued in California superior court via petition for writ of mandate seeking to avoid California registration; the superior court denied the petition, finding the Washington offense equated to Cal. Penal Code § 647.6 (annoying or molesting a child) and that Crofoot had admitted sexually explicit conduct.
- Crofoot appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether (1) his Washington conviction required California registration, (2) full faith and credit required California to honor Washington's termination, and (3) an equal protection claim about access to expungement/rehabilitation relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Registration classification: whether Crofoot's Washington conviction triggers California sex-offender registration | Crofoot: Washington offense lacks elements of a California registerable sexual offense; record insufficient to show equivalence | State: conviction and admissions (plea, probation condition, probable-cause affidavit) show conduct equivalent to § 647.6; court may consider record and admitted facts under § 290.005 | Held: Crofoot must register; trial court's finding that the offense equates to § 647.6 is supported and record omissions preclude reversal |
| Use of out-of-state documents at mandamus hearing | Crofoot: probable-cause certificate was an inadmissible police report and improperly considered | State: the certificate was part of Washington court record/accusatory pleading and Crofoot did not object below | Held: issue forfeited for appeal; even on merits the court could consider those records to determine conduct |
| Full faith and credit — conflict between Washington's termination and California lifetime requirement | Crofoot: full faith and credit requires California to terminate its registration if Washington did | State: Full faith and credit does not compel a forum state to substitute another state's statute or policy for its own domestic protective laws | Held: No full faith and credit violation; California may apply its lifetime registration to residents despite Washington's termination |
| Full faith and credit — effect of Washington court's termination order | Crofoot: the Washington court's order terminating his registration is a judgment that California must respect | State: Washington lacked authority to dictate California's protective measures; a foreign judgment cannot control forum's public-safety regime | Held: California is not bound to honor Washington's shorter regime; applying California law does not impair Washington's judgment or jurisdiction |
| Equal protection / access to expungement and rehabilitation relief | Crofoot: California residents convicted elsewhere cannot obtain equivalent expungement/rehabilitation and thus are treated unequally | State: issue was not raised below, Crofoot has not attempted available remedies, and the claim is not ripe | Held: Claim forfeited on appeal and not ripe; must be litigated first in superior court with factual record if relief sought |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Myers, 5 Cal.4th 1193 (1993) (court may consider entire record of prior conviction to determine equivalence to California offense)
- People v. Kennedy, 194 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (California applies lifetime registration to residents convicted elsewhere)
- People v. Bacon, 50 Cal.4th 1082 (2010) (trial court may consider circumstances of prior offense beyond indictment)
- People v. Castellanos, 21 Cal.4th 785 (1999) (sex-offender registration is regulatory, not punitive, for ex post facto analysis)
- Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493 (1939) (full faith and credit does not require forum to substitute foreign statute that conflicts with its domestic policy)
- Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010) (forum state need not adopt less restrictive registration regime reflected in foreign judgment)
- Donlan v. State, 249 P.3d 1231 (Nev. 2011) (Nevada may require registration despite California's less restrictive treatment)