NITZ v. STATE
2017 OK CIV APP 20
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Samuel A. Nitz, required to register in Oklahoma based on a 2006 Nebraska conviction for statutory rape, petitioned under 57 O.S. §590.2 to remove the registration requirement (a "Romeo and Juliet" exception).
- §590.2 allows removal only for convictions of specified Oklahoma statutes (21 O.S. §§1111.1 or 1114) and requires petitioning the court where the sentence was imposed.
- Nitz alleged his Nebraska conviction was the equivalent of Oklahoma second-degree rape, met the age-gap element, and that removal would not conflict with federal law. He supplied his Nebraska conviction record and argued DOC already had his out-of-state records.
- The trial court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning §590.2 applies only to Oklahoma convictions and that a jurisdictional limitation was rational because out‑of‑state records and prosecutor work product may be difficult for local prosecutors to obtain. The court denied reconsideration.
- On de novo appellate review (State did not file an answer brief), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed: it held §590.2’s place‑of‑conviction limitation discriminates against out‑of‑state convicts without a rational basis and violates equal protection, and remanded for reconsideration of Nitz’s application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §590.2 violates equal protection by limiting eligibility to persons convicted under specified Oklahoma statutes (i.e., excluding equivalent out‑of‑state convictions) | Nitz: The statute treats identically situated registrants differently based solely on where the conviction occurred; no rational basis exists because DOC already possesses out‑of‑state records and the petitioner bears the burden to prove equivalency. | State/DA: The place‑of‑conviction classification is rational because it is harder for prosecutors/courts to obtain and evaluate out‑of‑state records, work product, and foreign‑jurisdiction proof. | Court: §590.2’s restriction lacks a rational basis; it irrationally discriminates against out‑of‑state convictions and thus violates equal protection. Reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendricks v. Jones, 349 P.3d 531 (Okla. 2013) (state cannot rationally discriminate in SORA solely based on where conviction occurred; jurisdictional classification failed rational‑basis review)
- Butler v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 321 P.3d 161 (Okla. 2013) (upheld a SORA classification differentiating out‑of‑state expungements on a conceivable rational basis tied to statutory history and administrative burden)
- Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 162 P.3d 960 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (presumption of legislative constitutionality and standard of review)