STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DWIGHT DICKERSON
(AC 35725)
Beach, Sheldon and Norcott, Js.
Argued May 21—officially released July 22, 2014
(Aрpeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number twenty-three, Lager, J. [judgment]; Holden, J. [motion for exemption].)
******************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies bеtween the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the
******************************************************
S. Max Simmons, with whom was Diane Polan, for the appellant (defendant).
James M. Ralls, assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state‘s attorney, and Mary A. SanAngelo, senior assistant state‘s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
SHELDON, J. The defendant, Dwight Dickerson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for exemption from lifetime registration on the Connecticut sex offender registry on the ground that the statutory scheme imposing the lifetime registration requirement upon him violates his rights under the equal protection clauses of the United States and Connecticut constitutions. The defendant claims initially that the challenged statutes violate the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution by differentiating, without a rational basis, between himself and others like him who have been convicted of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of
The state disagrees, arguing first that there is indeed a rational basis for requiring lifetime sex offender registration for persons convicted of violent second degree sexual assaults, while imposing a shorter registration period upon persons convicted of other forms of second degree sexual assault. Therefore, it argues, because the defendant cannot establish that his state equal protection challenge to the sex offender registration statutes is subject to review under a higher standard of scrutiny than his federal equal protection challenge to those statutes, both challenges must be rejected because the differential treatment authorized by those statutes is supported by a factual basis. We agree with the state, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following procedural history, as set forth by the court, is relevant to our resolution of this claim: “The [defendant] pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault in the second degree under the Alford doctrine2 and two counts of fourth degree sexual assault. The trial court imposed sentence on December 14, 1994. The court sentenced the [defendant] to eight yeаrs incarceration suspended after serving four years, to be followed by five years of probation. The court sentenced the [defendant] to a one year period of incarcera- tion on each count of fourth degree sexual assault for a total effective sentence of eight years suspended after four years incarceration and five years probation. . . .
“While incarcerated [the defendant] was a model inmate. He had no disciplinary actions taken against him. While in prison he took advantage of virtually every opportunity available to him, including sex offender classes, a course in life planning skills, basic and advanced courses in nonviolent conflict resolution, a course in anger and aggression, two religious courses given by the Prison Fellowship, and the Emmaus Bible Correspondence Course. He took two classes offered by Asnuntuck [Community] College (with a 3.5 GPA). He worked as an assistant teacher in the GED course in Cheshire Correctional Institution and as a math instructor in Osborn Correctional Institution, and his supervisors have recommended him very highly.
“In 1996, after serving two years of his original four year sentence, [the defendant] was paroled directly to his family, pursuant to the trial court‘s order, after having been approved by his treatment provider to live with his young children.
“[The defendant] successfully completed five years of probation. Since [his] release in 1996 . . . he has not been arrested or otherwise involved with the criminal justice system. He also continued to seek treatment for his behavioral issues. He successfully completed five years of sex offender treatment with the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior in Middletown. While in the program he took and passed three polygraph tests and аlso had his home computer searched multiple times for inappropriate material, and none was ever found.
“From 2002 to 2007, [the defendant] paid for and received private counseling. His clinical therapist attested that [the defendant] ‘has accomplished successful control of his prior adjustment issues.’ He
“[The defendant] has also had a successful working career since his release from incarceration. From 1997 to 2003 he worked as a machinist for Moroso, GKN Westland Aerospace, and AMTEC, learning to work on computerized numerical control machines. In 2003 he joined Sikorsky Aircraft as a multimachine specialist; in 2009 he became final assembly mechanical inspector, inspecting heliсopters before they are delivered to military or civilian customers. He has had no disciplinary issues at work, has been continuously employed at Sikorsky since 2003, and has been highly recommended by his supervisor.
“[The defendant] has made extraordinary efforts to obtain higher education since [his] release. In January, 2004, he began taking classes at Albertus Magnus Col- lege in New Haven, where he had a 3.7 GPA. In 2005, he became a nondegree student at Yale University; after one year, he was admitted to the degree program. He attended Yale while working full-time at Sikorsky and while supporting his two children through college. [The defendant] graduated from Yale in 2010 with a B.A. in sociology and a focus on urban studies; his GPA was 3.23. In the fall of 2011, he began a master‘s program in sociology at Southern Connecticut State University while continuing to work full-time.
“[The defendant] actively participates in and contributes to his cоmmunity. Since his release, he has been an active member of first the Kingdom Life Christian Church in Milford and then the Church on the Rock in New Haven. He has been highly recommended by the pastors of both churches. He plays keyboards and trumpet in his church‘s band and is an active musician in the community, giving volunteer performances at Emergency Shelter Management Services in New Haven and at the Seacrest Retirement Center in West Haven. In 2008, he helped establish a summer scholarship program at the Neighborhood Music School in New Haven.
“Further, the facts reveal that [the defendant] is also the founder and CEO of Tri-Cord, an organization dedicated to providing tools to formerly incarcerated people to help them become successful. He does motivational speaking based on his own challenges and successes. [The defendant] is an active member of the New Haven Reentry Roundtable and a respected spokesperson for formerly incarcerated people. On May 7, 2012, the Connecticut Department of Correction granted [the defendant] direct access to DOC facilities as a ‘VIP Professional Partner.’ On May 11, 2012, the Judicial Branch notified him that Tri-Cord had been selected to provide training services related to family matters and the criminal system.
“Prominent members of the community offered letters of support for the [defendant]. Bishop Jay Ramirez, senior pastor of Kingdom Life Christian Church in Milford, Connecticut, stated in a letter of support, ‘In this line of work I hear so much garbage and so many promises to change. Too often it simply never comes to pass. From time [to time] I have the privilege of participating in someone‘s genuine conversion or restoration. [The defendant] is one of these peoplе.’ . . .
“The lifetime sex offender registration requirement has imposed numerous significant hardships on [the defendant]. He has been unable to find employment commensurate with his skills and education. He has been denied interviews for supervisory and management positions at Sikorsky, and for the company‘s leadership
We begin our analysis of the defendant‘s claim, as did the trial court, with a review of the relevant statutory authority governing motions for exemption from the sex offender registry, as set forth in
“[As our] Supreme Court has observed, the goal of Megаn‘s Law . . . is to alert the public by identifying potential sexual offender recidivists when necessary for public safety. . . . This goal is accomplished by requiring persons convicted of certain offenses to register with the [Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection] and by mandating disclosure of that registry to the public.
“The law designates four classes of offenses: (1) the victim is a minor or the sexual offense is nonviolent;
“[Before the trial court, the defendant did] not challenge the factual underpinnings that fоrm the basis for mandatory registration under
I
FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE
The defendant was convicted of second degree sexual assault under
“To determine whether a particular classification violates the guarantees of equal protection, the court must consider the character of the classification; the individual interests аffected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification. . . . Where, as here, the classification at issue neither impinges upon a fundamental right nor affects a suspect group it will withstand constitutional attack if the distinction is founded on a rational basis. . . . Rational basis review is satisfied so long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification . . . . [I]t is irrelevant whether the conceivable basis for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 240 Conn. 727, 739, 694 A.2d 758 (1997). “Rational basis review demands only that the challenged classification be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. . . . A party challenging a law under rational basis review bears the burden of proving that the law‘s class-based distinctions are wholly irrational.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dyous, 307 Conn. 299, 317, 53 A.3d 153 (2012).
The defendant herе claims that the statutory scheme at issue treats differently individuals who have been convicted of second degree sexual assault for committing violent offenses and those who similarly have been convicted of second degree sexual assault, but whose offenses are categorized as offenses against minors or nonviolent offenses. Specifically, he claims that because the statutory scheme requires lifetime registration for violent offenders, but only a ten year registration requirement for offenses against minors and nonviolent offenders, it violates his right to equal protection of the law under the United States constitution. The state argues, to the contrary, that the defendant‘s claim is flawed because there are no sexual assaults—and thus no registration requirements—that are designated as
It is undisputed that the statutory scheme imposing sex offender registration requirements neither affects a suspect group nor implicates a fundamental right for the purposes of the federal equal protection clause, and therefore must be analyzed under rational basis review. Furthermore, we conclude that the defendant is similarly situated, for the purpose of the statutory scheme at issue in his equal protection challenge, to those who have been convicted of
In the present case, we have no difficulty in ascertaining a rational basis for the disparate treatment in the statutory lifetime sex offender registration requirement for those who have been convicted of violent second degree sexual assaults as compared to the ten year registration requirement for those who have been con- victed of nonviolent second degree sexual assaults. We agree with the court‘s assessment and finding that a rational basis exists for the differentiation in registration requirements between violent and nonviolent second degree sexual assault offenders.
The court explained, “[i]t is well established that [t]he legislature enacted [Megan‘s Law] to protect the public from sex offenders. . . . [T]he lifetime registration requirement for those convicted of sexually violent offenses reflects an effort to target those sex offenders who engage in particularly predatory conduct. While the defendant contends that the application of the registration requirеments could lead to inequitable results in certain situations, it is not the role of the judiciary to second-guess the legislature. Although there may be other, perhaps even better, options available to the legislature to accomplish its legitimate objectives, rational basis review affords great deference to legislative choices and does not authorize this court to substitute its judgment, or that of the [defendant], for that of this state‘s elected representatives, as long as the classifications drawn by the legislature are reasonable. . . . [E]qual protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. . . . Rational basis review is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification . . . . [I]t is irrelevant whether the conceivable basis for the challenged distinction actually motivatеd the legislature. . . . To succeed, the party challenging the legislation must negative every conceivable basis which might support it.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
We conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is no rational basis for the difference between the registration requirements for those convicted of violent second degree sexual assaults and those convicted of nonviolent second degree sexual assaults.6 Requiring lifetime sex offender registration for those who have been convicted of violent second degree sexual assaults is rationally related to the government‘s legitimate interest in protecting the public from sex offenders whose actions demonstrate a willingness to use force or the threat of force to overcome the will of victims who have not expressed consent tо engage in sexual intercourse—and in this case, a victim who was not even capable of expressing such consent by reason of mental defect. Accordingly, the defendant‘s federal
II
STATE EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE
The defendant‘s fallback argument is that even if his federal equal protection challenge does not survive rational basis review, the equal protection clause of the Connecticut constitution provides an independent and greater basis to support his claim because it requires heightened review. The state argues that although the defendant raises a claim under the state constitution, he does not demonstrate that the state equal protection clause provides any additional protection or that his claim is subject to heightened review thereunder. We agree with the state that the defendant‘s equal protection challenge under the Connecticut constitution also must be rejected because he has not established that his claim is subject to heightened review, or is different in any other material respect from his federal equal protection challenge.
The equal protection clause of the Connecticut constitution,
“[I]n State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), we set forth six factors that, to the extent applicable, are to be considered in construing the contours of our state constitution so that we may reach reasoned and principled results as to its meaning. These factors are: (1) the text of the operative constitutional provision; (2) holdings and dicta of this court and the Appellate Court; (3) persuasive and relevаnt federal precedent; (4) persuasive sister state decisions; (5) the history of the operative constitutional provision, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers; and (6) contemporary economic and sociological considerations, including relevant public policies.” Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra, 289 Conn. 157. The defendant claims that the fourth, fifth and sixth Geisler factors weigh in favor of a more expansive reading of the state equal protection guarantee, and thus support his argument that the court erred in
With regard to the first Geisler factor—the text of the operative state and federal constitutional provisions—the court noted that “the defendant acknowledge[d] that the text of the equal protection clause of the Connecticut constitution is very similar to [that of] the federal equal protection clause and is therefore not particularly instructive in the present case.” Indeed, on appeal, the defendant stated in his brief that “[t]he text of
The defendant claims as well that the second and third Geisler factors—the holdings and dicta of our Supreme Court and this court, as well as persuasive and relevant federal precedent—“do not apply because no Connecticut or federal court appears to have addressed th[is] specific question . . . .” Here, once again, although the defendant argues that the second and third factors are inapplicable to the court‘s analysis, we find that the lack of Connecticut and federal precedent on this issue actually demonstrates that Connecticut‘s equal protection provision affords no greater protection to persons bringing state equal protection claims of the sort here presented than federal equal protection claims. The trial court concluded, and we agree, that “the defendant has nоt shown that the Geisler factors concerning relevant Connecticut and federal precedent support his argument.”
The defendant next claims that the fourth Geisler factor—persuasive sister state decisions—supports his state equal protection challenge because relevant sister state decisions “reject unequal treatment for people convicted of offenses that are almost identical in nature and severity [to that of the defendant].” In this regard, the defendant cites to several California cases for the proposition that other jurisdictions have invalidated aspects of sex offender registration laws that create arbitrary distinctions between different classes of offenders. In particular, the defendant claims that in People v. Hofsheier, 37 Cal. 4th 1185, 1207, 129 P.3d 29, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821 (2006), the California Supreme Court held that unequal treatment of defendants who have been cоnvicted of oral copulation with a minor—an offense that required mandatory registration—and defendants who have been convicted of sexual intercourse with a minor—an offense that afforded the court discretion whether or not to require registration—violated equal protection because there was no plausible rationale for distinguishing between these two offenses and their respective registration requirements. He attempts to draw a parallel between Hofsheier and the facts of this case to lend support to his argument that the distinctions between the registration requirements for different forms of Connecticut‘s second degree sexual assaults lack any rational basis. We are not persuaded.
In Hofsheier, the twenty-two year old defendant, who had pleaded guilty to felony oral copulation with a sixteen year old
Moreover, the California Court of Appeal expressly declined to extend the holding of Hofsheier in People v. Jeha, 187 Cal. App. 4th 1063, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711 (2010), a case factually similar to the present case. In Jeha, the defendant, who was convicted of sexual penetration of an unconscious victim, an offense which required mandatory sex offender registration, claimed an equal protection violation because the аllegedly similar offenses of sexual or oral penetration of a minor required registration only at the court‘s discretion. Id., 1068. Although the defendant in Jeha urged the court “to find him similarly situated with other defendants whose sex offenses involved consensual participants but whose status as minors rendered them unable to give legal consent“; id., 1076; the court rejected this argument, reasoning that “[a] sex offense against an intoxicated or unconscious person is not one that involves a voluntary participant. . . . The forcible nature of [the] defendant‘s sex offense sets him apart from the [defendant] in Hofsheier and following cases in which an equal protection challenge . . . was sustained.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 1076–77. The California Court of Appeal thus held that there was no equal protection violation in Jeha because the victim in that case had been unconscious at the time of thе sexual assault and therefore was unable to consent to penetration. Id.
The court in the present case aptly noted that “the distinction drawn by the Connecticut legislature in requiring those convicted of sexually violent offenses to register for life is not arbitrary,” as was the distinction ruled unconstitutional in Hofsheier. It thus concluded that “the defendant‘s argument pursuant to Hofsheier and its progeny is not persuasive.” We agree, and conclude that the fourth Geisler factor does not support the defendant‘s state equal protection challenge.
With regard to the fifth Geisler factor—the history of the operative constitutional provision—the defendant claims that our Supreme Court, in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra, 289 Conn. 141, held that the equal protection clause of the Connecticut constitution provides broader protection to claimants thereunder than to claimants
As to the sixth and final Geisler factor—contemporary economic and sociological considerations, including relevant public policy—the defendant claims that because there is an increasing awareness that registration can be unduly harsh to those offenders who pose little risk of reoffending, this factor weighs in his favor. Specifically, he claims that exempting him from lifetime registration would enable him to “become a contributing member of society . . . be free of the legal restrictions and ongoing harassment that he currently suffers as a result of registration . . . [and] help him gain employment more commensurate with his education and qualifications . . . .” Thе court held, and we agree, that “[t]he defendant fails to take into account the legitimate public safety reasons for requiring registration among those convicted of sexually violent offenses,” and thus we conclude that the sixth Geisler factor does not lend support to the defendant‘s state equal protection challenge.
In sum, we conclude that the court properly found that none of the Geisler factors supports the defendant‘s claim that heightened scrutiny must be applied to his state equal protection challenge to the requirement that he submit to lifetime registration as a sex offender as a result of his conviction of second degree sexual assault in violation of
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
The defendant was sentenced, on his conviction of second degree sexual assault, to a total effective term of eight years imprisonment, suspended after four years, followed by five years probation. In 1996, after serving two years of his original four year sentence, the defendant was paroled directly to his family. In addition to his second degree sexual assault conviction, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth degree sexual assault under