In re J. C., C080391

Background

J.C., born 1996, was adjudicated a juvenile ward at age 12 for committing forcible lewd/sodomy (§ 288(b)) on a 5‑year‑old; placed on probation with sex‑offender treatment conditions.
After multiple probation violations and unsuccessful placements (including treatment failures and further sexualized conduct), the juvenile court committed J.C. to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), triggering mandatory lifetime registration under Penal Code § 290.008.
The juvenile court ordered DJF placement before obtaining a statutory risk assessment and later used JSORRAT‑II (a juvenile tool) even though J.C. was 18 when assessed.
The dispositional order misstated J.C.’s maximum confinement as 10 years (reflecting a post‑offense statutory increase); the correct maximum at the time of offense was 8 years.
On appeal J.C. argued (1) lifetime juvenile registration is cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and (2) the disposition was defective for risk‑assessment and ex post facto errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory lifetime juvenile registration under § 290.008 is cruel and unusual punishment	J.C.: Juveniles differ from adults (lower recidivism, greater capacity for reform); public disclosure and lifetime duration are punitive and excessive	People: Challenge is forfeited; precedent treats registration as civil/regulatory and nonpunitive; juveniles not shown to be categorically different for this purpose	Court: Considered on the merits; held § 290.008 is not cruel and unusual because registration is regulatory, not punishment (plaintiff failed to show registration is punitive)
Forfeiture of constitutional challenge	J.C.: Facial constitutional challenge can be raised on appeal	People: Issue forfeited for not raising below	Court: Allowed review—facial pure‑law question; not forfeited
Use of age‑appropriate risk assessment tool (Welf. & Inst. Code § 706 / SARATSO)	J.C.: Court committed him without obtaining required risk assessment and then used JSORRAT‑II (juvenile tool) though he was 18; tool selection matters for future uses	People: Concede wrong tool used but argue harmless because DJF placement inevitable	Court: Error warrants reversal and remand to obtain age‑appropriate SARATSO assessment (proper tool matters for future classification/uses)
Maximum term of confinement / ex post facto	J.C.: Dispositional order used post‑offense increased maximum (10 yrs) in violation of ex post facto protections; correct maximum was 8 yrs	People: Concede error and agree to correction	Court: Agreed; directed remand to correct maximum confinement to 8 years

Key Cases Cited

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (held Alaska SORA civil/nonpunitive under Mendoza‑Martinez framework)
In re Alva, 33 Cal.4th 254 (2004) (California Supreme Court held § 290 registration nonpunitive and not cruel or unusual)
Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (set multi‑factor test for determining whether a civil sanction is punitive)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles categorically different for death‑penalty Eighth Amendment analysis)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders violates Eighth Amendment)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; individualized sentencing required)