Rbrt Groves v. State
156 Idaho 552
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Robert Groves pleaded guilty in 2000 to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, was sentenced with retained jurisdiction, later placed on probation and discharged from probation in 2011.
- Under the SORA regime as originally enacted, certain offenders could petition after ten years post-probation to be exempted from sex-offender registration; amendments later restricted exemptions for those convicted of "aggravated offenses."
- Legislative amendments (2001 and 2009) expanded the definition of "aggravated offense" to include lewd conduct (by 2009 regardless of victim age), thereby barring Groves from seeking an exemption when he petitioned in 2013.
- Groves argued retroactive application of the amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions and that he was denied due process (precluding him from presenting evidence of the amendments' impact).
- The district court applied the amendments retroactively, denied Groves’s petition, and Groves appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of 2001/2009 SORA amendments violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses | Retroactive denial of exemption is punitive and increases punishment; Groves relied on expectation of relief and complied with probation accordingly | SORA and its amendments are civil/regulatory, not punitive; legislature intended nonpunitive scheme and prior precedents uphold retroactivity | Court held retroactive application is civil/regulatory and does not violate Ex Post Facto Clauses; affirmed denial of exemption |
| Whether Groves was entitled to additional procedural due process before being barred from exemption | He should be allowed to present evidence/testimony on the amendments’ impact and rebut a "badge of infamy" | Eligibility/exemption classification derives from conviction and statute; conviction afforded the process to contest criminal liability, no separate hearing required | Court held no additional due process required; classification is offense-based (not a new stigmatizing label) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bottum v. Idaho State Police, Bureau of Criminal Identification Cent. Sex Offender Registry, 154 Idaho 182, 296 P.3d 388 (Idaho 2013) (discusses SORA history, retroactive application, and amendments)
- Gragg v. State, 143 Idaho 74, 137 P.3d 461 (Ct. App. 2005) (held SORA is regulatory/civil and retroactive registration does not violate Ex Post Facto Clauses)
- State v. Johnson, 152 Idaho 41, 266 P.3d 1146 (Idaho 2011) (analyzed retroactive effect of SORA amendments and concluded they are civil and nonpunitive; court treated portions as persuasive)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (Supreme Court framework for deciding whether sex-offender statutes are civil or punitive)
- Ray v. State, 133 Idaho 96, 982 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1999) (earlier Idaho Supreme Court ruling that registration serves regulatory purpose)
- Smith v. State, 146 Idaho 822, 203 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2009) (held "violent sexual predator" designation required additional procedural due process; distinguished from offense-based registration)