People v. Brandao
203 Cal. App. 4th 436
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Braz Brandao pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor §647.6(a) conviction for annoying and molesting a child; probation included mandatory §290 sex-offender registration for life.
- Trial court ordered three years of formal probation and required him to register in California and comply with any sex-offender requirements of his residence state (Oregon).
- Appellant appealed on equal protection grounds, challenging mandatory lifetime registration under §290 as applied to §647.6(a) offenses.
- Appellant argued Hofsheier-style offenders (voluntary sex offenses with minors) are similarly situated but subject to discretionary registration, not mandatory lifetime registration.
- Court reviewed the equal protection challenge at a facial level, focusing on the elements of §647.6(a) and distinguishing it from Hofsheier-type offenses.
- Court ultimately affirmed the judgment, holding §647.6(a) offenders are not similarly situated to Hofsheier-type offenders and that mandatory registration is not irrational given the statute’s purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory lifetime registration under §290 for §647.6(a) offenses violates equal protection | Brandao argues Hofsheier-like offenses receive different treatment | People contends §647.6(a) is not comparable to Hofsheier-type offenses and validly subjected to mandatory registration | No; §647.6(a) offenders are not similarly situated, so no equal protection violation |
| Are §647.6(a) offenses sufficiently comparable to Hofsheier-type offenses to trigger Hofsheier analysis | Brandao asserts broad similarity in conduct despite statutory differences | People asserts key differences (objective standard, motivation by abnormal sexual interest) separate the classes | Not substantially comparable; Hofsheier-type offenses differ in elements and motivation |
| Does the statutory framework rationally justify mandatory registration for §647.6(a) offenders | Equal protection requires rational basis for disparate treatment | Registration serves public safety and surveillance purposes for offenses involving sexually inappropriate conduct with minors | Rational basis exists; the statute’s objective standard and broad scope warrant mandatory registration |
| Does Newland compel a different outcome for §647.6(a) vs. Hofsheier-type offenses | Newland shows misdemeanants can be treated differently from certain felons | Newland addresses rehabilitation certificates, not registration under §290 for §647.6(a) | Not controlling; Hofsheier framework applies to the equal protection question here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hofsheier, 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2006) (mandatory registration for certain sex offenses violated equal protection; held discretionary vs mandatory distinctions presumptively valid)
- People v. Lopez, 19 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 1998) (objective test for offense of annoying or molesting a child; normal person would be irritated)
- Gladys R., 1 Cal.3d 855 (Cal. 1970) (motivation must be unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children)
- People v. Maurer, 32 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal.App.2 Dist. 1995) (discusses §647.6 and lack of specific intent requirement but abnormal interest standard)
- Newland v. Board of Governors, 19 Cal.3d 705 (Cal. 1977) (misdemeanants discriminated against re: certificates of rehabilitation; relevance limited)
- People v. Cavallaro, 178 Cal.App.4th 103 (Cal.App.6th Dist. 2009) (distinguishes Hofsheier-type offenses from other sexual offenses for equal protection)
- People v. Ranscht, 173 Cal.App.4th 1369 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2009) (extends Hofsheier rationale to certain offenses; discusses dissimilarities)
- In re J.P., 170 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2009) (extends Hofsheier-type reasoning to other contexts)
- People v. Kennedy, 180 Cal.App.4th 403 (Cal.App.2 Dist. 2010) (discusses Hofsheier framework and equal protection)