In re Douglas
200 Cal. App. 4th 236
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- People appeal trial court’s grant of habeas corpus to Roger Lynn Douglas under Penal Code 1506.
- Douglas pled no contest in 1997 to misdemeanor sexual battery; ignition of sex offender registration under 290(b).
- Trial court vacated the 1997 conviction, ruling Douglas was not advised of registration requirement.
- People contend petition was untimely, barred by laches, and Douglas was not in actual/constructive custody.
- Douglas filed habeas petition in 2010; evidentiary hearing held; court found notice of registration on December 19, 1997.
- Court reverses, holding petition untimely and barred by laches; also finds no constructive custody for the 1997 conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and laches bar | Douglas’s delay was justified; timely under Robbins. | People argue untimely; substantial delay and prejudice require denial. | Petition untimely and barred by laches. |
| Constructive custody for the 1997 conviction | Constructive custody may allow review of expired convictions. | Registration collateral consequences don’t create custody; no constructive custody for the 1997 conviction. | Douglas not in constructive custody for the 1997 conviction. |
| Merits of ineffective assistance or other relief | Error in advising on registration could warrant relief. | Delay and custody issues foreclose merits review; no timely relief. | Merits not reached; procedural bar controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (1998) (timeliness standards for habeas petitions; good cause and exceptions)
- In re Huddleston, 71 Cal.2d 1031 (1969) (no express time window for noncapital habeas petitions; timely filing analyzed each case)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993) (timeliness and exceptions; finality concerns)
- People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367 (1993) (advisement deficiencies and relief limitations)
- Stier, 152 Cal.App.4th 63 (2007) (constructive custody limits; sex-offender registration as collateral consequence)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (custody principles regarding expired convictions and new custody)
- Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001) (finality and custody in collateral attacks on state convictions)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (expired sentences; collateral consequences not custody for habeas)