69 P.3d 507
Alaska Ct. App.
2003

OPINION

MANNHEIMER, Judge.

Wаlt Herreid was indicted for first-degree and second-degree sexual assault. He ultimately reached a plea bargain with the State; under the terms of this bargain, Herreid pleaded no contest to а single misdemeanor count-attempted third-degree sexual assault. 1

Even though Herreid was convicted of a misdemeanor, this misdemeanor is nevertheless classified as a "sex offense" for purpоses *508 of the Sex Offender Registration Act. 2 Accordingly, Herreid is required to register and ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍to report annually for a period of 15-years. 3

In this appeal, Herreid contends that the Sex Offender Registration Act is unconstitutional because it аmounts to an improper infringement by the legislative branch of government into sentencing matters that аre entrusted to the judicial branch.

Herreid contends that the reporting requirement imposed by the Act is a punishment for his crime-and that, because the reporting requirement is a punishment, it can be analogized to a term of imprisonment. Herreid points out that sentencing courts traditionally have the power to impose an individualized term of imprisonment on an offender, based on the court's assessment of the offender's level of dangerousness and the offender's prospects for rehabilitаtion. Her-reid argues that a sentencing court must likewise have the power to impose an individualizеd sex offender reporting requirement-the power to reduce the statutory 15-year reporting period if the court concludes that an individual offender's level of dangerousness and prospects for rehabilitation do not warrant such a lengthy reporting period. Based on this reasoning, Herrеid concludes that when the legislature enacted a statute imposing a uniform 15-year reporting requirement on all sex offenders, the legislature overstepped its constitutional powers and impermissibly infringed on the prerogatives of the judicial branch.

Herreid's arguments are substantially undermined by two rеcent decisions ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍of the United States Supreme Court. In Smith v. Doe, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1154, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003), the Supreme Court held that Alaska's Sex Offеnder Registration Act did not impose a eriminal "punishment"; rather, the Act is a civil regulatory measure. (This Court earlier reached the same conclusion in Patterson v. State, 985 P.2d 1007, 1011-13 (Alaska App.1999).)

Because the Sex Offender Registration Act is a regulatory measure, the registration and reporting requirements imposed by the Act are not part of a defendant's sentence. Peterson v. State, 988 P.2d 109, 115 (Alaska App.1999). A sentencing сourt has no power to exempt a defendant from the requirements of the Act-nor, for that mattеr, does a sentencing court have the power ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍to impose sex offender registration and reporting on a defendant whose crime does not qualify as a "sex offense" under AS 12.68.100(1) or (6). See Whitehеad v. State, 985 P.2d 1019, 1021 (Alaska App.1999).

Moreover, in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 1162-63, 1164-65, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003), the United States Supreme Court implicitly rejected Herreid's argument that the length of the reporting requirement must be modifiable, depending on the individual offender's level of dangerousness. The Supreme Court held that persons who are subject to registration and reporting requirements based on their prior conviction for a sex оffense have no due process right to a pre-registration opportunity to prove that thеy are not a danger to the public.

The Court pointed out that Connecticut's registration requiremеnt was "based ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness" 4 For this reason, the Court concluded that Connecticut had no due process obligation to give sеx offenders a chance to prove their lack of dangerousness:

[The fact that [the] resрondent seeks to prove-that he is not currently dangerous-is of no consequence under Connеcticut's Megan's Law.... [The law's requirements turn on an offender's conviction alone-a fact that а convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity tо contest.... No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants' information.
[[Image here]]
*509 Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍establish in that hearing аre relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here.

Id., - U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1164, 1165. Based on these two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and based on our own prior decisions in Patterson, Peterson, and Whitehead, we reject Herreid's constitutional challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The legislature's decision to require sex offenders to register and to report on a regular basis for a specified period of time does not violate the sеparation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.

Notes

1

. AS 11.41.425(@a).

2

. See AS 12.63.100(6)(C)@.

3

. Seе AS 12.63.010(b) (duty to register); AS 12.63.010(d)(1) (duty to annually report); AS 12.63.020(a)(2) (requiring an offender convicted of a single, non-aggravated sex offense to report for 15-years).

4

. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, - U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1163.