United States v. Gary Hardeman
704 F.3d 1266
9th Cir.2013Background
- Hardeman was indicted for §2423(c) illicit sexual conduct and §2260A for committing that offense while under a sex-offender registration duty.
- The district court dismissed §2260A as violative of the Ex Post Facto Clause; government appeals.
- California law shifted from expungement-limited registration (1980s) to ongoing registration for sex offenders (1982, 1994).
- Hardeman’s related expungements occurred, leaving him under an ongoing state-duty to register.
- The government argues §2260A adds punishment for the latest crime, not retroactively punishing past conduct.
- The court reverses, holding §2260A does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §2260A violate Ex Post Facto Clause? | Hardeman argues retroactive punishment increases penalties. | Government argues registration-based enhancement is not punishment. | No Ex Post Facto violation |
| Is enhanced punishment under §2260A analogous to recidivism? | Hardeman contends it retroactively penalizes past conduct. | Government contends it targets the latest offense only. | Yes, not retroactive punishment; constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Begay, 622 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (interlocutory standards for ex post facto review)
- Fioretti v. Cal., 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (retroactive registration not Ex Post Facto)
- People v. Castellanos, 982 P.2d 211 (Cal. 1999) (retroactive sex-offender registration not Ex Post Facto)
- Smith v. Doe I, 538 U.S. 84 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (retroactive sex-offender registration constitutional)
- Hatton v. Bonner, 356 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (retroactive registration not Ex Post Facto; AEDPA lens)
- United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (recidivism penalties target latest offense)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) (repeat-offender laws penalize only the latest offense)
- Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (1948) (recidivism sentence stiffens for latest offense)
- Elkins v. United States, 683 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2012) (SORNA retroactivity does not violate Ex Post Facto)
- Arzate-Nunez v. United States, 18 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 1994) (enhancement for prior conviction not Ex Post Facto)