2017 COA 33
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Douglas Roy Stanley pleaded no contest in California in 2001 to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(d)) for sex with a 15‑year‑old; his conviction was later reduced to a misdemeanor and he completed probation.
- In November 2014 the California DOJ informed Stanley his California statutory duty to register as a sex offender had been terminated.
- In January 2015 Stanley filed a pro se civil petition in Arapahoe County, Colorado, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16‑22‑113 to discontinue Colorado sex‑offender registration for a non‑Colorado conviction; his petition tracked the statutory form but failed to affirm ineligibility prohibitions; counsel filed a supplement attaching the California termination letter and asserting Stanley might be a temporary Colorado resident.
- Stanley conceded his conduct, if committed in Colorado, would constitute sexual assault under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18‑3‑402(1)(e) (a class 1 misdemeanor deemed an extraordinary‑risk crime) and thus would trigger Colorado registration rules.
- The district court denied relief, concluding § 16‑22‑113(3) expressly bars discontinuation for persons convicted as adults of offenses comparable to § 18‑3‑402; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑Colorado offender whose conviction is comparable to Colo. § 18‑3‑402 can discontinue Colorado registration when the state of conviction has terminated that offender’s registration duty | Stanley: California’s termination means he should not have to register in Colorado; the phrase “or to the comparable requirements of any other jurisdictions in which they may reside” permits discontinuation if the other jurisdiction no longer requires registration | Respondent: § 16‑22‑113(3) expressly makes persons convicted of offenses comparable to § 18‑3‑402 ineligible for discontinuation and subjects them to lifetime registration in Colorado regardless of other states’ laws or administrative actions | Court: Affirmed — plain language and statutory scheme preclude discontinuation; Colorado’s lifetime registration requirement controls despite California’s termination |
| Whether applying § 16‑22‑113(3) to temporary residents produces an impermissible disparity between out‑of‑state and Colorado convictions | Stanley: Distinction would allow out‑of‑state offenders to escape Colorado registration if their original state deregisters them, producing unequal treatment | Respondent: CSORA treats temporary and permanent residents the same; allowing state‑by‑state administrative decisions to override Colorado’s registration undermines CSORA’s public‑safety purpose | Court: Rejected Stanley’s view — statute requires registration for temporary residents and prevents disparate outcomes; public‑safety purpose supports uniform application |
Key Cases Cited
(Opinion primarily relied on Colorado appellate statutory interpretations and prior Colorado Appellate decisions cited without official reporter citations.)