Doe v. Harris
57 Cal. 4th 64
Cal.2013Background
- In 1991, John Doe pled nolo contendere to one of six counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 in exchange for dismissal of the other five and was required to register as a sex offender under former § 290.
- The registration provisions at the time were confidential, with public disclosure not allowed under former § 290, subd. (i).
- Megan’s Law retroactively amended § 290 in 2004 to allow public access to offender information, applying to preexisting convictions.
- Doe filed a federal civil action in 2007 challenging retroactive public disclosure as violating his plea agreement.
- The district court enjoined disclosure, concluding the plea language tied to § 290 as written at the time, and did not contemplate retroactive amendments.
- The Ninth Circuit certified the question to California courts on the proper contract-interpretation rule governing retroactive changes to plea agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does California law bind plea terms to retroactive changes? | Doe argues retroactive changes cannot alter silent terms of the plea. | Gipson and Swenson support that the state may amend the law impacting the plea. | Yes; plea terms may be affected by retroactive changes in the law. |
| Is there an implied promise that a plea remains unaffected by later law? | Doe asserts silence and references to § 290 create an implied promise of confidentiality. | State courts reject implied promises arising from silence absent explicit terms. | Silence generally does not create an implied promise to be unaffected by retroactive amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. County of Santa Clara, 117 Cal.App.4th 1065 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (plea agreements may reserve state power to amend the law)
- Swenson v. File, 3 Cal.3d 389 (Cal.3d 1970) (changes in law after contract generally not part of contract)
- In re Lowe, 130 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (absence of discussion on retroactive changes does not imply unaffected status)
- People v. Acuna, 77 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal.App.4th 2000) (absence of expungement discussion does not violate plea terms)
- People v. Arata, 151 Cal.App.4th 778 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (implicit promises depend on circumstances, not general rule)
- People v. Harvey, 25 Cal.3d 754 (Cal.3d 1979) (plea agreements may include implied terms)
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (Cal.3d 1978) (plea agreements may encompass implied terms)
- In re Marriage of Walton, 28 Cal.App.3d 108 (Cal.App.3d 1972) (contracts infused with public policy may reserve state power)
- Segura v. United States, 44 Cal.4th 921 (Cal.4th 2008) (contract interpretation of plea agreements per Cal. law)