State v. Binnarr, 733 S.E.2d 890

Petitioner was convicted by a jury for failing to timely register as a sex offender under §23-3-4601.
In 2006, the registration deadline changed from annual to biannual, with August 2006 as the first biannual deadline.
Sheriff’s Office mailed notices to Petitioner about the change; a regular-letter was not returned, and a certified letter was unclaimed.
Petitioner testified he did not receive any notice of the 2006 change before the August 2006 deadline.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding actual notice was required for conviction under §23-3-470 in light of Latimore.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether actual notice of the 2006 change is required for conviction	Binnarr argues Latimore requires actual notice.	Binnarr contends notice need not be actual; mailing suffices.	Actual notice required
Whether there was direct/substantial evidence of actual notice	State asserts sheriff’s notice suffices as notice.	No direct/substantial evidence Petitioner received actual notice.	Not satisfied; no direct evidence and limited circumstantial evidence
Whether the notice procedures satisfied due process	Constructive notice via office procedures could suffice.	Passive notice through mail/unclear printing is insufficient.	Procedures failed to establish notice; due process not met

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. Supreme Court 1957) (actual notice required for certain criminal prohibitions unless duty to inquire exists)
Latimore, 397 S.C. 9 (S.C. 2012) (actual notice required to convict under biannual registration amendment)
Edwards, 302 S.C. 492 (S.C. 1990) (notice issues in applying amendments to penalties)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (unclaimed notice letters insufficient; requirement to notify adequately)
Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31 (S.C. 2003) (notice requirements for delinquent tax Sales; importance of proper notice)