People v. McKenzie CA2/6, B319489

Background

Defendant Antwan McKenzie (then 30) frequently texted S.E., a 15‑year‑old who babysat his children; McKenzie was married to the girl’s aunt.
Texts included sexual invitations, offers of money, requests to delete messages, photos, and entreaties to kiss and meet in a Jacuzzi; the victim complained to police.
Police recovered the messages; McKenzie was convicted by jury of contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense (§ 288.3(a)) based on intent to commit a lewd act (§ 288(c)(1)); jury also found abuse of a position of trust.
Trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed McKenzie on two years formal probation with 200 days in county jail and lifetime sex‑offender registration (§ 290).
McKenzie appealed, arguing (1) he should have been prosecuted under the special misdemeanor statute (§ 647.6) per In re Williamson, (2) the offense should have been treated as a wobbler/misdemeanor under § 17(b) and his counsel was ineffective for not seeking that at sentencing, and (3) lifetime registration violates equal protection.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	McKenzie’s Argument	Held
Whether Williamson preemption requires treating the conduct under § 647.6 (misdemeanor) rather than § 288.3 (felony)	§288.3 applies to specific‑intent communications intending enumerated sex crimes; Williamson doesn’t preempt because elements differ and electorate intended §288.3 to protect children from internet predators	Williamson requires that where a special statute (§647.6) covers the same conduct it supersedes the general felony statute, so crime should be a misdemeanor	Rejected Williamson claim: elements and mental state differ; applying Williamson would nullify §288.3, and electorally adopted §288.3 shows intent for felony treatment.
Whether the offense is a wobbler / trial court should have reduced to misdemeanor; ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to request reduction	§288.3 prescribes felony punishment; no statutory authorization to reduce to misdemeanor; counsel not ineffective for omitting meritless request	Trial court should have exercised discretion to treat as a misdemeanor under §17(b); counsel ineffective for failing to request reduction at sentencing	Forfeited because defense didn’t request reduction at sentencing; on merits §288.3 is a straight felony and reduction is not authorized; no ineffective assistance.
Whether lifetime sex‑offender registration violates equal protection	Different target offenses and age differentials produce meaningful distinctions; lifetime registration rationally related to protecting children from predators	Lifetime registration for §288.3 (based on intended §288(c)(1)) is disparate compared to other §288.3 predicates that carry shorter registration terms	Rejected equal protection claim: defendants are not similarly situated given victim/defendant age differences and offense severity; lifetime registration has a rational basis.

Key Cases Cited

In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (establishes Williamson preemption rule for special vs general statutes)
People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (explains Williamson tests and statutory‑elements/context inquiry)
Hudson v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.5th 999 (notes Williamson inapplicable when felony requires greater mental state)
People v. Fromuth, 2 Cal.App.5th 91 (discusses §647.6 as a general‑intent offense)
People v. Weddington, 246 Cal.App.4th 468 (forfeiture of wobbler reduction claim when not raised at sentencing)
People v. Korwin, 36 Cal.App.5th 682 (context on Prop. 83/§288.3’s purpose to combat sexual predators)
People v. Terry, 47 Cal.App.4th 329 (punishment specified determines felony/misdemeanor when statute silent)
People v. Mauch, 163 Cal.App.4th 669 (court cannot reduce straight felony to misdemeanor absent statutory authorization)
People v. Keister, 198 Cal.App.4th 442 (equal protection requires similarly situated comparison)
Legg v. Dept. of Justice, 81 Cal.App.5th 504 (age differential can be a meaningful distinction supporting registration)
Johnson v. Dept. of Justice, 60 Cal.4th 871 (rational‑basis review accepts rough legislative classifications)