Johnson v. Department of Justice, 60 Cal. 4th 871

Background

James Richard Johnson pleaded guilty (1990) to one count of nonforcible oral copulation with a minor under 16 (Pen. Code § 288a(b)(2)), received prison time, and was subject to mandatory lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Pen. Code § 290).
In 2006 this court decided People v. Hofsheier, holding mandatory registration for nonforcible oral copulation with a 16–17-year-old violated equal protection because unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code § 261.5) with the same-aged minors was subject only to discretionary registration.
Courts of Appeal extended Hofsheier to invalidate mandatory registration for additional nonforcible sex offenses involving minors, including some § 288a(b)(2) convictions, prompting judicial uncertainty and claims for registry relief.
Johnson relied on Hofsheier and sought removal from the registry; lower courts were split (some following Hofsheier extensions, others distinguishing Manchel).
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether Hofsheier governs Johnson’s § 288a(b)(2) conviction and (2) whether Hofsheier should be overruled and, if so, whether the overruling should be retroactive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory § 290 registration for § 288a(b)(2) violates equal protection because § 261.5 offenders face only discretionary registration	Johnson: Hofsheier requires that mandatory registration for oral copulation but not for unlawful intercourse is unconstitutional discrimination	People: The statutory classification is rationally related to legitimate goals (recidivism prevention, surveillance, teen pregnancy/child-support concerns)	Court: Overrules Hofsheier; finds the distinction has a plausible rational basis and § 288a(b)(2) registration does not violate equal protection
Whether Hofsheier should be overruled under stare decisis	Johnson: Hofsheier was correctly decided and remedied a historical anomaly; overturning harms those who relied on it	People: Hofsheier was wrongly decided, produced broad disruptive effects, and legislative correction is impractical	Court: Stare decisis inapplicable here; Hofsheier is overruled because its rational-basis analysis was flawed
Whether the Legislature’s omission of § 261.5 from mandatory registration is irrational	Johnson: The omission lacks any plausible legislative purpose; oral copulation and intercourse are similarly situated	People: Legislation reasonably distinguishes intercourse because it can cause pregnancy/parenthood and the Legislature considered stigma/support concerns	Court: Legislative concerns about teen pregnancy, child support, and recidivism are plausible bases for the differential treatment
Retroactivity of overruling Hofsheier to relief seekers (e.g., Johnson)	Johnson: Relief should apply to him (he relied on Hofsheier)	People: Overruling need not be retroactive where no justifiable reliance exists	Court: Overruling does not unfairly prejudice Johnson; no justifiable reliance by him on Hofsheier, so relief under Hofsheier is denied; court remands consistent with opinion

Key Cases Cited

People v. Hofsheier, 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2006) (prior decision holding mandatory registration for certain oral copulation offenses violated equal protection)
Wright v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 521 (Cal. 1997) (describing § 290 registration as mandatory and aimed at preventing recidivism)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (articulates rational-basis equal protection standard and "any reasonably conceivable state of facts" test)
FCC v. Beach Comm’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (courts must accept plausible reasons for legislative classifications under rational-basis review)
People v. Turnage, 55 Cal.4th 62 (Cal. 2012) (discusses application of rational-basis review to criminal statutes and statutory classifications)
New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1976) (upholds legislative classifications under rational-basis scrutiny)