THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.B., Defendant and Appellant.
C098871
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Filed 8/28/24
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Super. Ct. No. JV138181)
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Edrina Anderson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The Legislature in the past few years has overhauled certain juvenile court laws through juvenile justice realignment. The realignment included closing Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and transferring DJJ‘s responsibilities to county facilities.
Under
Minor I.B. was committed to DJJ for two counts of assault with intent to commit rape. At his reentry hearing, the juvenile court imposed a probation condition requiring him to register as a sex offender under
We reject these arguments. The rational basis standard applies because the sex offender registration requirement for minor does not involve a loss of liberty and thus does not implicate a fundamental right. And a rational basis exists to justify the differential treatment of minors already in DJJ‘s custody and minors later committed to county facilities, because the Legislature could have determined the latter have a lower risk of recidivism due to more effective treatment. We affirm the dispositional order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2017, minor admitted two counts of assault with intent to commit rape (
Minor was discharged from DJJ in April 2023. At minor‘s reentry disposition hearing, the juvenile court terminated DJJ‘s jurisdiction and granted minor formal probation. Minor‘s counsel objected to a probation condition that required minor to register as a sex offender pursuant to
Minor timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends
I
Juvenile Justice Realignment Background
A. The Closure of DJJ
Until recently, DJJ was “the state‘s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders.” (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902.) In 2020, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337) as part of its juvenile justice realignment efforts. (Miguel C., at p. 907.) Those efforts “included the transfer of DJJ‘s responsibilities to California‘s counties beginning [] July 1, 2021 (
In making these changes, the Legislature noted “[e]vidence has demonstrated that justice system-involved youth are more successful when they remain connected to their families and communities. Justice system-involved youth who remain in their communities have lower recidivism rates and are more prepared for their transition back into the community.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1(a).) Therefore, realignment aims to “ensure that justice-involved youth are closer to their families and communities and receive age-appropriate treatment.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1(b).)
B. Section 290.008
Under
After the passage of Senate Bill No. 823, the Legislature amended
II
Degree of Justification
“The Equal Protection Clause of the
“The degree of justification required to satisfy equal protection depends on the type of unequal treatment at issue. Courts apply [a] heightened scrutiny when a challenged statute or other regulation involves a suspect classification such as race, or a fundamental right such as the right to vote, and accordingly will demand greater justification for the differential treatment. [Citations.] But when a statute involves neither a suspect classification nor a fundamental right, the ‘general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.’ [Citations.] A court applying this standard finds ‘a denial of equal protection only if there is no rational relationship between a disparity in treatment and some legitimate government purpose.‘” (People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 847.) Personal liberty is a fundamental right. (People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236, 245, 251.)
The mandatory lifetime sex offender registration imposed by
Also, “juveniles have not been recognized as a suspect class” (In re J.M. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 999, 1010), and minor does not contend otherwise. We thus review
Minor contends some courts have improperly evaluated
III
Equal Protection
A. Analytical Framework for Equal Protection Claims
“[W]hen plaintiffs challenge laws drawing distinctions between identifiable groups or classes of persons, on the basis that the distinctions drawn are inconsistent with equal protection, courts no longer need to ask at the threshold whether the two groups are similarly situated for purposes of the law in question. The only pertinent inquiry is whether the challenged difference in treatment is adequately justified under the applicable standard of review. The burden is on the party challenging the law to show that it is not.” (People v. Hardin, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 850-851.)
Minor contends
B. Analysis
Sex offender registration “is intended to promote the ““state interest in controlling crime and preventing recidivism in sex offenders“” [citation] and serves ‘an important and vital public purpose by compelling registration of many serious and violent sex offenders who require continued public surveillance’ [citations].” (Johnson v. Department of Justice, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 877.)
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
RENNER, J.