731 F.3d 928
9th Cir.2013Background
- In 1986 Maciel was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with force against a child and sentenced to 42 years and 4 months; the sentencing court did not orally state a parole term or sex‑offender registration requirement on the record or abstract of judgment, though California law then mandated both.
- Maciel was released in 2008 and the state informed him he would be subject to a three‑year parole term and sex‑offender registration; he was returned to custody 11 months later for parole violations.
- Maciel filed successive state habeas petitions claiming due‑process violations under Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler because parole and registration were not part of his judgment; the California courts denied relief, holding those requirements were statutorily mandated.
- Maciel sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and granted a COA limited to whether the parole term violated Wampler.
- While the appeal was pending Maciel completed his parole, rendering the parole‑term COA issue moot; the Ninth Circuit certified the registration claim for appeal and reviewed de novo under AEDPA deferential standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maciel’s challenge to the parole term under Wampler remains justiciable after parole ended | Maciel: parole term was invalid under Wampler because it was not part of the court’s judgment | State: issue moot because parole has ended and Maciel shows no continuing collateral consequence | Moot — no jurisdiction over the parole‑term claim because Maciel identified no continuing concrete injury |
| Whether administrative imposition of sex‑offender registration and related conditions violates Wampler | Maciel: administrative addition of registration/GPS/residency/etc. violates Wampler if not included in the judgment | State: registration and parole conditions are statutorily mandated, regulatory (not judicially discretionary), and not an unlawful amendment of the sentence | Denied — state court decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Wampler; reasonable jurists could disagree whether registration consequences are punitive, so AEDPA deference bars relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (Wampler rule: sentence must be expressed in judgment; warrant conditions inconsistent with judgment are void)
- Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (applied Wampler to invalidate administratively added post‑release supervision)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (habeas claims moot if petitioner lacks a continuing concrete collateral consequence after release)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: state court decisions stand if fairminded jurists could disagree)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (sex‑offender registration serves legitimate nonpunitive public‑safety purpose)