Added: Larae Tsosie - Date: 26.01.2022 12:50 - Views: 39257 - Clicks: 2402
Sean F. Dunn appeals an order denying a petition to recall his sentence for felony petty theft with a prior and for resentencing to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and School Act the Act. Here we hold that a person is not eligible for resentencing pursuant to section if the person is required to register as a sex offender as a result of a prior juvenile adjudication. This treatment of registered juvenile sex offenders does not deny Dunn equal protection of the laws. In , when Dunn was 14 years old, he committed two acts of forcible rape in concert with another and three acts of forcible sexual penetration.
A juvenile court sustained allegations that he committed two counts of section It committed him to the California Youth Authority for a 54—year term. Following Dunn's discharge, he was required to register as a sex offender. In , Dunn was sentenced to prison for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. In , he returned to prison for robbery. While on parole for the robbery in , he stole items from a department store. He pled guilty to felony petty theft with a prior. He admitted the prior strike conviction for robbery and the court sentenced him to 32 months in prison.
Dunn was released on parole in , with electronic monitoring. Two months later, he violated parole by removing his electronic tracking device. The court revoked and reinstated his parole. In , Dunn petitioned for resentencing to misdemeanor petty theft under the Act. Dunn contends only adult sex offenders should be ineligible for relief under section The plain language of the statute provides otherwise.
Dunn's petition fails at the first prong because he would not have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the Act. Juvenile sex offender registry is a part of the Sex Offender Registration Act. If the electorate intended to make only adult offenders ineligible for relief under section , it knew how to do so. Dunn asks us to construe section to make only adult sex offenders ineligible. We disagree with each of these contentions. The electorate's intent to withhold relief from juvenile sex offenders who commit serial thefts is unambiguously expressed in section People v.
Canty 32 Cal. The rule of lenity does not apply because section is not reasonably susceptible to two constructions. Avery 27 Cal. Garcia 21 Cal. Section does not violate equal protection guarantees because juvenile sex offenders who commit recidivist theft crimes and juvenile sex offenders who commit other Proposition 47 crimes are not similarly situated. Morales 63 Cal. Shaw Cal. Harsher consequences for recidivists is not irrational. McCain 36 Cal. Wilkinson 33 Cal. All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Former section , subdivision d 1 , in effect when Dunn was discharged, is substantially similar to current section Dunn's juvenile adjudications are not super-strikes because he was under 16 in Explore Resources For Practice Management.
Legal Technology. Corporate Counsel. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Reset A A Font size: Print. B Decided: August 04, Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender, Michael C. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Thank you for subscribing! Please try again.Adult looking sex Dunn
email: [email protected] - phone:(168) 611-5141 x 5408
Sexual problems: a study of the prevalence and need for health care in the general population