THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS CASTELLANOS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S064388
Supreme Court of California
Aug. 30, 1999.
21 Cal. 4th 785 | 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 346 | 982 P.2d 211
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Steven D. Matthews, John R. Gorey and Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
GEORGE, C. J.—Following defendant Luis Castellanos‘s conviction of a series of criminal offenses, the trial court ordered him to register as a sex offender pursuant to a provision in
I
In April 1994, defendant introduced himself to a member of the women‘s basketball team at Glendale College and subsequently appeared at her house. She allowed defendant to enter the residence but said she was getting ready to leave (which was not true) and left him in the living room for “a minute or two” while she went upstairs to get her keys. Then both she and defendant left the house. The student went to her automobile and defendant appeared to go to his. She drove around the block, parked, and walked back to her house “through the back way” in order to avoid defendant if he still was present. As she approached her house, she saw defendant inside, replacing a screen on a window. She went to her grandmother‘s house and called the police.
The police arrested defendant the following day while he was attending a class at Glendale College. Defendant was carrying twenty-six $100 bills. In his locker, he had a three-month-old sports section of a local newspaper that contained an article that mentioned the student. In his backpack, police found a set of keys that belonged to a teacher at Glendale College, an address book, and a list of names of 14- and 15-year-old girls.
Defendant made a detailed confession. He explained that he had deter
Defendant admitted that this was not his first burglary and that he had burglarized the homes of many of the girls named on the list found in his backpack. Each time, he took a pair of the girl‘s panties. Often, he also took money and photographs of the girl. He consented to have the police search the premises where he lived with his mother. At defendant‘s direction, the police looked inside a crawl space above the closet in defendant‘s bedroom and found, buried in the insulation, a trashbag that contained 27 pairs of women‘s panties, numerous photographs of teenage girls, and some pubic hairs in plastic bags with notes identifying their sources.
The police contacted the girls involved. Many had not known that their property had been taken, but identified their underwear and photographs. Others had noticed that money was missing, usually in amounts close to $100, but had not suspected a burglary had occurred. On one occasion, $2,720 had been taken.
Defendant was convicted of 13 counts of first degree burglary in violation of
Defendant argued on appeal that requiring him to register as a sex offender violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and California Constitutions, because the provision in
II
At the time defendant committed the present offenses in 1993 and 1994,
On January 1, 1995 (after defendant committed the present offenses, but before he was convicted), an amendment to
Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the federal Constitution states in pertinent part: “No state shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto law. . . .”
More than 200 years ago, in Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 [1 L.Ed. 648, 650], the United States Supreme Court discussed the
In Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [110 S.Ct. 2715, 2718, 111 L.Ed.2d 30], the high court reaffirmed this interpretation of the ex post facto clause: “Although the Latin phrase ‘ex post facto’ literally encompasses any law passed ‘after the fact,’ it has long been recognized by this Court that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them.” Relying upon the decision in Calder v. Bull, supra, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, the high court restated the prohibition of the ex post facto clause in simple terms: “Legislatures may not retroactively alter the definition of crime or increase the punishment for criminal acts.” (Collins v. Youngblood, supra, 497 U.S. 37, 43 [110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719].)
In the present case, the amendment to
In People v. McVickers, supra, 4 Cal.4th 81, we held that requiring a defendant convicted of certain sex offenses to provide a blood sample for AIDS testing did not constitute punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis. We observed that “the ex post facto clause prohibits not just a burden but a more burdensome punishment.” (Id. at p. 84, italics in original.)
In so holding, we twice cited the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Noble (1992) 171 Ariz. 171 [829 P.2d 1217] that “held that a statute requiring registration of sex offenders did not violate the ban on ex post facto legislation as applied to a defendant whose crimes preceded its enactment because the overriding purpose of the statute was ‘facilitating the location of child sex offenders by law enforcement personnel,’ a purpose unrelated to punishment. [Citation.]” (People v. McVickers, supra, 4 Cal.4th 81, 81, 87, 89.)
The Arizona Supreme Court is not alone in concluding that a sex offender registration requirement does not constitute punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis. As recognized by the Court of Appeal in People v. Fioretti (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1214 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 367], “[V]irtually every court recently considering sex offender registration laws has held that these requirements are regulatory rather than punitive. (See, e.g., Kitze v. Com. (1996) 23 Va.App. 213 [475 S.E.2d 830]; Opinion of the Justices to the Senate (1996) 423 Mass. 1201 [668 N.E.2d 738]; State v. Myers (1996) 260 Kan. 669 [923 P.2d 1024]; Artway v. Attorney General of State of N.J. (3d Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 1235, 1267; State v. Noble (1992) 171 Ariz. 171 [829 P.2d 1217, 1219-1220]; State v. Ward (1994) 123 Wn.2d 488 [869 P.2d 1062].)” (See also Doe v. Pataki (2d Cir. 1997) 120 F.3d 1263; State v. Burr (N.D. 1999) 598 N.W.2d 147; State v. Pickens (Iowa 1997) 558 N.W.2d 396; Doe v. Poritz (1995) 142 N.J. 1 [662 A.2d 367, 36 A.L.R.5th 711]; State v. Costello (1994) 138 N.H. 587 [643 A.2d 531]; State v. Manning (Minn.Ct.App. 1995) 532 N.W.2d 244.)
Six months after our decision in McVickers, the United States Supreme Court decided Austin v. United States (1993) 509 U.S. 602 [113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488]. The issue in the Austin case was whether a civil forfeiture under
Reviewing the history of forfeiture provisions in both England and the United States, the court in Austin concluded “that forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment.” (Austin v. United States, supra, 509 U.S. 602, 618, fn. omitted.) The court then examined the federal statutes at issue and found “nothing in these provisions or their legislative history to contradict the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment.” (Id. at p. 619 [113 S.Ct. at p. 2810].) Having determined that forfeiture constituted punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, the court remanded the matter to the lower court for a determination of whether the forfeiture or fine in that case was “excessive.” (509 U.S. at pp. 622-623 [113 S.Ct. at p. 2812].)
In United States v. Ursery (1996) 518 U.S. 267 [116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549], the United States Supreme Court adopted a different approach to determining what constitutes punishment, holding that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution did not preclude “the Government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil
The court in Ursery distinguished its holding in Austin on the basis that Austin involved the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, rather than the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The high court explained that the double jeopardy clause prohibits all types of successive punishment. Thus, the court earlier had held in United States v. Halper (1989) 490 U.S. 435, 442 [109 S.Ct. 1892, 1898, 104 L.Ed.2d 487] that imposition of an in personam civil penalty following the imposition of criminal penalties could violate the double jeopardy clause if the civil penalty is “so extreme and so divorced from the Government‘s damages and expenses as to constitute punishment.” The Eighth Amendment, by contrast, prohibits only those fines that are “excessive.” Therefore, “it appears to make little practical difference whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies to all forfeitures . . . or only to those that cannot be characterized as purely remedial,” because the excessive fines clause “prohibits only the imposition of ‘excessive’ fines, and a fine that serves purely remedial purposes cannot be considered ‘excessive’ in any event.” (Austin v. United States, supra, 509 U.S. 602, 622, fn. 14.) Thus, the method of analysis under the double jeopardy clause differs from that applicable to the excessive fines clause, but both involve the same consideration of whether the penalty serves purely remedial purposes.
In Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501], the United States Supreme Court held that civil commitment under Kansas‘s Sexually Violent Predator Act based upon past conduct for which the offender has been convicted and punished does not violate the double jeopardy clause or the ex post facto clause, because such civil commitment
None of the United States Supreme Court decisions discussed above address the precise issue before us. And the method of analyzing what constitutes punishment varies depending upon the context in which the question arises. But two factors appear important in each case: whether the Legislature intended the provision to constitute punishment and, if not, whether the provision is so punitive in nature or effect that it must be found to constitute punishment despite the Legislature‘s contrary intent.5 In making these determinations in the present case, we are guided by our recent
decisions in McVickers and Wright v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 322, 936 P.2d 101].
As noted above, we held in People v. McVickers, supra, 4 Cal.4th 81, 88, that requiring a defendant to provide a blood sample for AIDS testing imposes a burden, but is not punitive in nature. We held that the statutes there under review “have a legitimate purpose other than punishment . . . [and] the method chosen—a mandatory AIDS test with results given only to the defendant and to law enforcement officials—is not excessive in relation to the statute‘s asserted purpose.” (Id. at p. 89.) Similarly, in the present case, requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender certainly imposes a burden, but whether the registration requirement constitutes punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis depends upon whether the purpose or effect of this requirement is punitive in nature.
In Wright v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.4th 521, we recently examined the nature of the sex offender registration requirement imposed by
The sex offender registration requirement serves an important and proper remedial purpose, and it does not appear that the Legislature intended the registration requirement to constitute punishment. Nor is the sex offender registration requirement so punitive in fact that it must be regarded as punishment, despite the Legislature‘s contrary intent. Although registration imposes a substantial burden on the convicted offender, this burden is no more onerous than necessary to achieve the purpose of the statute.6 We conclude that the sex offender registration requirement imposed by
As noted above, subsequent to our decision in Reed, the United States Supreme Court elaborated upon and refined the criteria to be considered in determining whether a provision should be considered “punishment” for purposes of ex post facto analysis (see, e.g., Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 361-369 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2081-2086, 138 L.Ed.2d at pp. 515-519] [indefinite civil commitment of a sexually violent offender does not constitute punishment for ex post facto purposes]), and our court also has spoken
To begin with, in this context, we believe it is appropriate to place greater emphasis than did the court in In re Reed, supra, on the circumstance that sex offender registration has not “‘historically been regarded as punishment.‘” (33 Cal.3d at p. 920.) While not dispositive, this factor is of great importance, because it supports the conclusions that the Legislature did not intend the provision to constitute punishment and that the provision is not punitive in nature. As noted above, virtually every other jurisdiction that has passed on the question has concluded that sex registration provisions are regulatory rather than punitive, and do not constitute punishment for purposes of the ex post facto doctrine. (See
Second, because the question at issue in In re Reed, supra, involved whether sex registration was “cruel or unusual punishment” as applied to the misdemeanor solicitation conviction of which the defendant in that case had been convicted, the court in Reed directed much of its consideration to whether the registration requirement was “excessive” in light of a statement made by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who appeared as amicus curiae in Reed. This statement maintained that “mandatory registration of
Accordingly, to the extent that the analysis in Reed can be understood, as the Court of Appeal in the present case viewed that decision,
In sum, we conclude that sex offender registration does not constitute punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis, because the Legislature did not intend such registration to constitute punishment and the provision is not so punitive in nature or effect that it must be held to constitute punishment despite the Legislature‘s contrary intent.
III
Defendant additionally contends that even if requiring him to register as a sex offender does not violate the ex post facto clause, the trial court‘s order nonetheless is invalid, because the court failed to state its reasons for ordering him to register as a sex offender as required by
Although defendant raised this issue on appeal, the Court of Appeal expressly declined to reach the issue, because of its decision striking the trial court‘s order requiring sex offender registration as violative of the ex post facto clause. On remand, the Court of Appeal should consider this issue.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Baxter, J., and Chin, J., concurred.
KENNARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.—Defendant here is subject to a requirement, enacted after he committed the crimes of which he
I
The United States Constitution forbids states from enacting ex post facto laws—laws that impose punishment for conduct occurring before the law was enacted. (
The lead opinion concludes that the registration requirement is not punishment; in doing so, it cites to United States Supreme Court precedent interpreting the meaning of punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines. In addition, the lead opinion refuses to apply the multifactor test of punishment first articulated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) 372 U.S. 144 [83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644] (hereafter the Mendoza-Martinez factors) and subsequently applied in numerous high court decisions. Although I, too, conclude that the registration requirement is not punishment, in my view the United States Supreme Court has laid out a different path of analysis for us to follow.
The United States Supreme Court has concluded that punishment has the same meaning for both ex post facto and double jeopardy purposes. In Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 361 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2081-2082, 138 L.Ed.2d 501], the high court applied a single test to determine that the involuntary civil commitment of a sex offender after the end of his criminal imprisonment was not punishment either for ex post facto or double jeopardy purposes.
The United States Supreme Court has also made clear that the concept of punishment has a meaning that varies in the context of different constitutional provisions. In particular, punishment has a different and broader meaning under the Eighth Amendment than it does for purposes of ex post
The lead opinion‘s reliance in this ex post facto case on Eighth Amendment decisions such as Austin v. United States, supra, 509 U.S. 602, is thus misplaced. Instead, the proper test of punishment in this case is the one the high court has applied in double jeopardy and ex post facto cases.
The test of whether a government sanction is punishment for ex post facto and double jeopardy purposes has two parts. The first question is whether the legislature intended the sanction to be civil or criminal. “Whether a particular punishment is criminal or civil is, at least initially, a matter of statutory construction. [Citation.] A court must first ask whether the legislature, ‘in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other.‘” (Hudson v. United States (1997) 522 U.S. 93, 99 [118 S.Ct. 488, 493, 139 L.Ed.2d 450].) The high court has viewed the civil or criminal character of the proceedings in which the sanction is imposed as a central and powerful indicium of legislative intent. (Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 361 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2081-2082] [“We must initially ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings.“]; accord, United States v. Ursery, supra, 518 U.S. 267, 288 [116 S.Ct. 2135, 2147] [“First, we ask whether Congress intended proceedings [for forfeiture] . . . to be criminal or civil.“]; United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms (1984) 465 U.S. 354, 362 [104 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-1105, 79 L.Ed.2d 361]; United States v. Ward (1980) 448 U.S. 242, 248 [100 S.Ct. 2636, 2641, 65 L.Ed.2d 742].)
If the legislature intended the sanction to be civil, then the second question is whether the sanction in purpose or effect is nonetheless so punitive that it can only be regarded as punishment. It is at this stage that the Mendoza-Martinez factors come into play. In the words of the high court:
“Even in those cases where the legislature ‘has indicated an intention to establish a civil penalty, we have inquired further whether the statutory
scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect,’ [citation] as to ‘transfor[m] what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty,’ [citation]. “In making this latter determination, the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 [83 S.Ct. 554, 567-568, 9 L.Ed.2d 644] (1963), provide useful guideposts, including: (1) ‘[w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint‘; (2) ‘whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment‘; (3) ‘whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter‘; (4) ‘whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence‘; (5) ‘whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime‘; (6) ‘whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it‘; and (7) ‘whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.’ It is important to note, however, that ‘these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face,’ [citation] and ‘only the clearest proof’ will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” (Hudson v. United States, supra, 522 U.S. 93, 99-100 [118 S.Ct. 488, 493, 139 L.Ed.2d 450]; accord, Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 361-362 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2081-2082]; United States v. Ursery, supra, 518 U.S. 267, 288 [116 S.Ct. 2135, 2147] [“Second, we turn to consider whether the proceedings are so punitive in fact as to ‘persuade us that the forfeiture proceeding[s] may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature,’ despite Congress’ intent.“], 291; United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra, 465 U.S. 354, 362 [104 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-1105]; United States v. Ward, supra, 448 U.S. 242, 248 [100 S.Ct. 2636, 2641].)
Thus, the lead opinion errs when it concludes that the Mendoza-Martinez factors have no application in deciding under this second prong whether a putatively civil sanction is nonetheless punishment. (Lead opn., ante, at pp. 795-796, fn. 5; see Hudson v. United States, supra, 522 U.S. 93, 99-100 [118 S.Ct. 488, 493]; Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 362 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082]; United States v. Ursery, supra, 518 U.S. 267, 291 [116 S.Ct. 2135, 2148-2149]; United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, supra, 465 U.S. 354, 365 [104 S.Ct. 1099, 1106]; United States v. Ward, supra, 448 U.S. 242, 249-250 [100 S.Ct. 2636, 2641-2642].) The lead opinion‘s assertion that the two-prong ex post facto punishment test can be applied without deciding whether the Mendoza-Martinez factors apply to ex post facto cases ignores that the Mendoza-Martinez factors are a central part of the second prong of that test.
II
Applying the United States Supreme Court‘s two-part test of punishment to this case, the first question is whether our Legislature intended the
The purpose of the high court‘s two-part test of punishment, however, seems to be to divine the true character of the sanction in question. Legislative intent is a powerful indication of the character of the sanction; if a legislature intended it as punishment it probably is punitive. And legislative intent as to the nature of the proceeding by which the sanction is to be imposed is ordinarily a strong proxy for legislative intent as to the character of the sanction itself. If the legislature intended the sanction to be imposed in a criminal proceeding it probably intended the sanction to be punitive. Probably, but not necessarily. In People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850, 840 P.2d 955], this court concluded that an AIDS testing requirement imposed in the course of the defendant‘s criminal proceedings was not punishment for ex post facto purposes.
Here, likewise, it seems that our Legislature, having decided to extend registration at the discretion of the sentencing court to all sexually motivated crimes, made the registration determination part of the criminal proceeding not because it intended it to be an additional punishment for the crime but because, given that the determination turns on the facts of the underlying crime, it is far more efficient to make the determination as part of the criminal proceeding than in a separate civil proceeding (e.g., of the type used in Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, to civilly commit sex offenders at the end of their penal sentences).
I pass to the second prong of the test—whether the sanction is so punitive it can only be regarded as punishment. On balance, I conclude it is not. On the one hand, it is sophistic to assert as the People do that the registration is purely regulatory and not punitive. As the high court has explained, “the two primary objectives of criminal punishment” are “retribution” and “deterrence.” (Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 361-362 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082].) We have said that one purpose of the registration requirement is “‘“controlling crime and preventing recidivism“‘” (Wright v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 527 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 322, 936 P.2d 101]; see lead opn., ante, at p. 796)—in other words, deterrence. Part of this deterrence arises from the substantial lifetime burden that registration imposes on
On the other hand, a second purpose we have identified for the registration requirement, making sex offenders available for police surveillance (Wright v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.4th 521, 527), seems more aimed at ferreting out crime after it has occurred than deterring its commission, and thus is not punitive. (Requiring automobile owners to register their vehicles aids in the detection of crime, but that does not make registration punitive.) Whatever punitive aspects the statute may have, they do not seem so overwhelming as to turn registration into a form of punishment. This is especially true in light of the high court‘s conclusion in Kansas v. Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. 346, 362 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082], that the civil commitment of sex offenders is not punishment. It is hard to imagine how requiring a sex offender to file an address report could be punishment when physically confining the same offender beyond the end of his criminal sentence is not.
Application of the Mendoza-Martinez factors listed above also supports the conclusion that registration is not punishment. (See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 [83 S.Ct. 554, 567-568].) Registration, although burdensome, does not seem to involve an affirmative disability or restraint, for it does not prevent the registrant from doing anything he could otherwise do. Government registration, at least in the abstract and considered apart from the shaming function of public disclosure, has not historically been regarded as a punishment.1 Registration does not solely promote retribution and deterrence, the traditional aims of punishment. There is an alternative purpose—police access to known sex offenders after a sex crime has been committed—to which the registration requirement may rationally be connected. Finally, the registration requirement does not appear excessive in relation to the alternative purpose. Two other factors weigh in
III
As I have explained, the ex post facto test of punishment incorporates the Mendoza-Martinez factors and differs from the Eighth Amendment test of punishment. This understanding of the ex post facto punishment test makes clear why In re Reed (1983) 33 Cal.3d 914 [191 Cal.Rptr. 658, 663 P.2d 216], the decision the Court of Appeal relied upon to conclude that sex offender registration is punishment for ex post facto purposes, does not govern this case. At issue in Reed was the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement as applied to persons convicted of misdemeanor violations of
For the reasons stated above, I disagree with Reed‘s conclusion that under the Mendoza-Martinez factors sex offender registration is punishment. This does not, however, mean that Reed was incorrect in holding that registration is punishment for purposes of
CONCLUSION
Although I conclude, as does the lead opinion, that the registration requirement imposed on defendant is not punishment for ex post facto purposes, I reach that result by the route set forth above. Most significantly, unlike the lead opinion I do not rely on the Eighth Amendment punishment
Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred.
MOSK, J.—I dissent. This court has long concluded, in a variety of different contexts, that sex offender registration is a form of punishment. Today, the court concludes to the contrary, and therefore holds that such a requirement may be imposed retrospectively without violating the ex post facto clause of the federal and California Constitutions (
At the outset, it is important to recognize the narrowness of the issue in this case. California has had a sex offender registration law since 1947. (Stats. 1947, ch. 1124, § 1, p. 2562.) For many years, those who have committed various forms of sexual assault, child molestation, and other such serious offenses have been subject to these registration laws. The Legislature may expand, within the boundaries of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (
In Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [110 S.Ct. 2715, 2718, 111 L.Ed.2d 30], the high court stated: “Although the Latin phrase ‘ex post facto’ literally encompasses any law passed ‘after the fact,’ it has long been recognized by this Court that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them.” Accordingly, under the ex post facto clause “Legislatures may not retroactively alter the definition of crime or increase the punishment for criminal acts.” (Id., at p. 43 [110 S.Ct. at p. 2719], italics added.) As this court recently explained: “The primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee is to ensure that the consequences of a particular course of conduct can be meaningfully assessed in advance, without fear that the rules of criminality and punishment will later change.” (People v. Frazer (1999) 21 Cal.4th 737, 760 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 982 P.2d 180], italics in original.) The fair warning for the penal consequences of one‘s conduct that the ex post facto clause requires is “fundamental to our concept of constitutional liberty.” (Marks v. United States (1977) 430 U.S. 188, 191 [97 S.Ct. 990, 993, 51 L.Ed.2d 260].)
It is evident that the imposition of a lifelong sex offender registration requirement changes the rules of punishment and precludes the meaningful assessment of “a particular course of conduct.” For this reason, we have consistently held that in order for a guilty plea to be deemed knowing and intelligent, a defendant must be informed of any such registration requirements. (People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 376 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739, 862 P.2d 739]; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 605 [119 Cal.Rptr. 302, 531 P.2d 1086]; In re Birch (1973) 10 Cal.3d 314, 321-322 [110 Cal.Rptr. 212, 515 P.2d 12] (Birch).) As we explained: “Under
Thus in Birch, supra, 10 Cal.3d at page 322, we concluded that a defendant‘s guilty plea without the assistance of counsel was invalid because “we cannot believe that he was aware that as a consequence of urinating in a parking lot at 1:30 in the morning he would be required to register as a sex offender” and that “[c]ertainly counsel would have advised him of this grave and direct consequence of his guilty plea.” (Italics in original.) Our conclusion in Birch and the other cases cited above was based on the de facto recognition of sex offender registration as a form of punishment. How can it be that we do not regard a defendant entering a plea agreement to have done so knowingly and intelligently if he is not notified of the sex offender registration requirement, but we do not consider advance notice of these requirements necessary for a “meaningful assessment” of “a particular course of conduct” under the ex post facto clause of the United States and California Constitutions?
In Kelly v. Municipal Court (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 38 [324 P.2d 990] (Kelly), the court considered whether the sex offender registration requirement was one of the “penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which [a defendant] has been convicted” that may be discharged upon fulfillment of the conditions of probation under
Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d 914, contains the most extensive discussion of the question of the punitive nature of sex offender registration and for that
In addressing this question, the Reed court cited the test set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) 372 U.S. 144 [83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644] (Mendoza-Martinez), for whether a nominally civil sanction was in fact punitive: “[T]he United States Supreme Court enumerated the following factors for consideration on this issue: ‘Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned are all relevant to the inquiry, and may often point in differing directions.‘” (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 920.)
Applying this test, the Reed court first determined, “that such registration is an ‘affirmative disability or restraint,‘” citing language in Kelly and Birch quoted above regarding the onerous nature of the requirement. (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 920.) The Reed court added: “Similarly, albeit in a different context, Justice Kaus has characterized the sex offender registration requirement as follows: ‘Apart from the bother and loss of privacy which mere registration entails, the “ready availability” to the police, if it serves its purpose, presumably means a series of command performances at lineups.’ [Citation.] Needless to emphasize, law enforcement ‘command performances’ involve compulsion and restraint.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
Continuing our consideration of the Mendoza-Martinez factors, we stated: “The fact that sex offender registration may not have ‘historically been regarded as punishment’ is not dispositive. The Mendoza-Martinez opinion sets out a number of relevant considerations, not a checklist of absolute requirements. Furthermore, in Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 U.S. 86 [2 L.Ed.2d 630, 78 S.Ct. 590], the Supreme Court invalidated the penalty of denationalization imposed for wartime desertion. The court denied that the government has ‘a license to devise any punishment short of death within the limits of its imagination. . . . [¶] Fines, imprisonment, and even execution may be imposed depending upon the enormity of the crime, but
“Similarly in Weems v. United States (1910) 217 U.S. 349 [54 L.Ed. 793, 30 S.Ct. 544], the high court stressed the severity of the nonphysical punishment imposed. Though no doubt influenced in its decision by the harshness of the physical punishment, the court also addressed the postimprisonment penalties: ‘His prison bars and chains are removed, it is true, after twelve years, but he goes from them to a perpetual limitation of his liberty. He is forever kept under the shadow of his crime, forever kept within voice and view of the criminal magistrate, not being able to change his domicile without giving notice to the “authority immediately in charge of his surveillance,” and without permission in writing. He may not seek, even in other scenes and among other people, to retrieve his fall from rectitude. Even that hope is taken from him and he is subject to tormenting regulations that, if not so tangible as iron bars and stone walls, oppress as much by their continuity, and deprive of essential liberty.’ [Citation.]
“The third, fourth, and fifth factors enumerated in Mendoza-Martinez are readily satisfied here. We have interpreted
“We may also consider, under Mendoza-Martinez, whether there exists ‘an alternative purpose’ to which the punishment ‘may rationally be connected.’ (372 U.S. at p. 168 [9 L.Ed.2d at p. 661].) Although the Legislature may reasonably have intended that sex offender registration serve as a law enforcement tool to facilitate criminal investigations, it is not clear that the measure is effective in practice. Moreover, the fact that a minimal or ‘rational’ basis may underlie the legislation is outweighed here by the fact that the penalty of registration is ‘excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned’ to it.” (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 921-922, fn. omitted.)
For all of these reasons we concluded “that the sex offender registration compelled by
The lead opinion attempts to distinguish Reed. It points out that our conclusion in Reed that sex offender registration was excessive in relation to the alternative, nonpunitive purpose assigned to it was based on our doubt about whether sex offender registration was effective in practice, which in turn was based in part on concessions in the amicus curiae brief of the Los Angeles City Attorney. The city attorney had advised this court of his opinion that registration of misdemeanants overloaded computers with useless information and made it more difficult to identify more serious sex offenders. (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 922, fn. 7.) The lead opinion implies that the fact no comparable concession can be found in this case limits the applicability of Reed. But this point has little merit for two reasons: First, the primary focus of our opinion in Reed was on the punitive effect or impact of sex offender registration as well as the fact that it is imposed only in connection with criminal conviction. As discussed, the lead opinion barely addresses the punitive effect prong of ex post facto analysis, focusing almost exclusively on legislative intent. Thus, even if the portion of the Reed opinion regarding the practical effectiveness of sex offender registration were discounted, Reed would still stand for the proposition that the registration requirement was punitive in its impact.
Second, the practical effectiveness of the registration requirement remains in doubt. Since registration is voluntary and police resources are limited, it is questionable whether those who are intent on repeating their offenses will comply with registration laws. Registration has therefore been criticized, as one law enforcement official put it, because it “just keeps honest offenders honest.” (Quoted in Comment, Examining Sex Offender Community Notification Laws (1995) 83 Cal.L.Rev. 885, 903.) This criticism is borne out by reports of widespread inaccuracy in the sex offender registration databases. (Id., at pp. 900-902 [recounting various reports of 80-90 percent inaccuracy in the addresses of registered sex offenders in various California locations].) Thus, although the emphasis in Reed was on the burden and stigma of registration and the connection between the registration requirement and criminal conviction, the fact that substantial questions remain about the practical effectiveness of this requirement also supports the continued viability of Reed‘s conclusion that sex offender registration is in fact a punitive measure.5
The lead opinion also finds Reed inapposite because in that case “the central issue was whether the registration requirement was excessive or disproportionate to the severity of the offenses committed by the defendant” under the cruel or unusual punishment clause (lead opn., ante, at p. 798, italics in original), which is not at issue in this case. But as noted, in order for the Reed court to conclude that the registration requirement was an excessive or disproportionate punishment in relation to the severity of the offense, it first had to conclude, and did conclude, that the registration requirement was a form of punishment. (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 922.) This foundational conclusion cannot be squared with the court‘s holding in the present case.
The lead opinion also contends that “reexamination of the decision in Reed in light of . . . more recent cases,” leads to the conclusion that Reed should be disapproved at least in part. (Lead opn., ante, at p. 798.) The two cases cited by way of example, People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850, 840 P.2d 955] and Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346 [117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501] (Hendricks), do not support the lead‘s position. In McVickers, we upheld against an ex post facto challenge a statute,
In Hendricks, the court considered a statute that authorized the civil commitment of a person convicted of a “sexually violent offense,” when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person “‘suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes a person likely to engage in the predatory acts of [such] sexual violence.‘” (521 U.S. at p. 352 [117 S.Ct. at p. 2077].) Civil commitment could also be brought against those charged with a sexually violent offense who have been found incompetent to stand trial, or have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or some other mental disease or defect. (Ibid.) The commitment is reviewed annually to determine if continued detention is warranted. (Id. at p. 353 [117 S.Ct. at pp. 2077-2078].) The court reasoned that this statutory scheme did not differ appreciably from other civil commitment statutes that had long been regarded as nonpunitive. (Id. at pp. 356-357 [117 S.Ct. at pp. 2079-2080].) The court emphasized the disjunction between past criminal liability and commitment under the statute. Prior criminal conduct “is used solely for evidentiary purposes, either to demonstrate that a ‘mental abnormality’ exists or to support a finding of future dangerousness. . . . In addition, the Kansas Act does not make a criminal conviction a prerequisite for commitment—persons absolved of criminal responsibility may nonetheless be subject to confinement under the Act.” (Id. at p. 362 [117 S.Ct. at p. 2082].) Furthermore, citing Mendoza-Martinez, the court found the existence of “a scienter requirement is customarily an important element in distinguishing criminal from civil statutes,” and concluded that in the case of the Kansas statute “no finding of scienter is required to commit an individual who is found to be a sexually violent predator; instead, the commitment determination is based on a ‘mental abnormality’ or ‘personality disorder’ rather than on one‘s criminal intent.” (Ibid.)
By contrast, the sex offender registration statute applies only to those convicted of criminal offenses. Moreover, in the present case it is imposed on one who commits an offense under “sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification,” and is therefore contingent on a finding of scienter. Thus, although civil commitment can certainly be as disabling a form of restraint as incarceration, its disjunction from criminal liability in Hendricks makes that case inapposite to the present one.
In short, I am not persuaded that our consistent conclusion in Reed, McClellan, Birch, and other cases that the lengthy sex offender registration requirement is a penal sanction, was incorrect. Therefore, to impose such a
Notes
We believe there is no need to resolve that issue here, because all of the cases recognize that the two factors noted above—whether the Legislature intended the provision to constitute punishment, and, if not, whether the provision is nonetheless so punitive in nature and effect