Shoemaker v. Harris, 214 Cal. App. 4th 1210

Shoemaker was convicted in 2004 of misdemeanor possession and misdemeanor duplication of child pornography; convictions affirmed on appeal in 2006.
He filed a 1983 civil action alleging equal protection violations from mandatory lifetime registration under Penal Code §290, arguing discretionary registration would apply to others with more egregious offenses.
The superior court sustained a demurrer and transferred the case to a criminal court, treating it as a habeas petition which was denied on the merits.
The trial and appellate courts relied on Hofsheier and Picklesimer for Hofsheier relief and habeas-related procedures.
The court held jurisdiction to review the equal protection claim on its merits regardless of whether treated as an appeal or habeas petition, and ultimately affirmed that §290’s mandatory registration does not violate equal protection.
Shoemaker’s offenses were under §311.11 and §311.3, involving possession/duplication of child pornography, with the registration scheme distinguishing them from seven other listed offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory lifetime registration under §290 violates equal protection	Shoemaker relies on Hofsheier to challenge via §1983	Discretionary registration under §290.006 supports rational basis distinction	No equal protection violation; rational basis supports classification
Whether the action could be reviewed on the merits in civil §1983 form or only by habeas	§1983 remedy available for Hofsheier-type claims	Habeas petition preferred for custodial challenges	Merits review of the claim proper, irrespective of procedural label; claim denied on the merits
Whether the distinction between offenses justifies mandatory vs discretionary registration	Seven listed offenses involve more direct harm to minors	Offenses differ in nature; registration can be rationally tailored to protect minors	Yes; a rational basis exists for treating possession/duplication offenses differently from the seven listed offenses
Whether morphed images affect the Hofsheier analysis	Some images may be morphed; potentially less direct harm	Courts have held morphed images implicate child pornography interests	Morhed-image issue does not defeat the rational basis justification; remains within Legislature’s permissible classification

People v. Hofsheier, 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2006) (equal protection challenge to mandatory registration for nonforcible minor-sex offenses)
People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal.4th 330 (Cal. 2010) (habeas mandamus mechanics for Hofsheier relief; custodial vs noncustodial distinctions"},{)