May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates
 Bookstore:       
5/14/2013 - Convicted Killer of Seven Wants Playstation in Jail Cell 4/26/2013 - The Big Print Giveth and the Small Print Taketh Away 3/14/2013 - When Is a Volunteer an Employee Covered by Work Comp? It Depends on the Pixie Dust you Sprinkle. 2/21/2013 - When Is A 10˘ Charge Imposed by the Government Not A Tax? more...
|
Quote of the Day - Don't take the wrong side of an argument just because your opponent has taken the right side.
What's Wrong With This Opinion?James Hernandez pled no contest to oral copulation with a person less than 16-years-old. Hernandez was 22 and the minor was 14. In 2001, Hernandez served 270 days in jail, was placed on five years of probation, and required to register with local police as a sex offender according to California Penal Code section 290. So far, so good. In 2006, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Hofsheier that mandatory sex offender registration under section 290 violated equal protection when a person is convicted of oral copulation of a minor between the ages of 16 and 18. Don't ask me why, I just report 'em - the post in the last link gives a great explanation. Based on that decision, Hernandez appealed to overturn the mandatory registration requirement, arguing there is no reasonable distinction between oral copulation with a person between 16 and 18 years of age and with a person between 14 and 16 years of age. The court of appeal reversed the mandatory sex offender registration requirement and allowed Hernandez not to register as a sex offender. So I ask again, what's wrong with this decision in People v. Hernandez? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Text-Only Site | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
