People v. Barker
Decision Date | 30 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. S115438.,S115438. |
Citation | 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260,34 Cal.4th 345,96 P.3d 507 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald BARKER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Rehearing Denied September 29, 2004.1
Richard Such, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jack Funk, Assistant Public Defender, for California Public Defenders Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Gerald A. Engler and Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorneys General, René A. Chacón, Laurence K. Sullivan, Ronald E. Niver, Stan Cross and Janet E. Neeley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A registered sex offender must, within five working days of the offender's birthday, update his or her registration. (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a)(1)(D).)2 Willful failure to update one's registration is a felony. (§ 290, subd. (g)(2), hereafter section 290(g)(2).) The question presented by this case is whether the willfulness element of the offense may be negated by just forgetting to register. We conclude it may not be.
Because the issue before us is narrow, the facts may be briefly stated. Defendant is a registered sex offender. He was required to register because of two rape convictions; he was also convicted of attempted rape. His victims were 70, 73, and 84 years of age. He beat them so severely they were hospitalized; the 84-year-old was in critical condition for three days.
Defendant understood his birthday triggered an obligation to update his registration. In 1996, 1997, and 1998, he signed and dated boxes on forms that recited this obligation. Seven months before he committed this offense, defendant again signed a sex offender registration form. On this form he initialed 15 statements advising him of his various registration obligations, including the following statement: "I must, annually, within 5 working days of my birthday, go to the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over my location or place of residence and update my registration, name, and vehicle registration."
Nevertheless, in 2000, defendant failed, by his own admission, to update his registration within five working days of his birthday, as required by section 290, former subdivision (a)(1)(C) (now subd. (a)(1)(D)). When he was arrested, defendant acknowledged he had not only initialed the advisements regarding his registration obligations, but also that he had read and remembered them. Asked why he had failed to update his registration within the grace period, defendant responded, "[B]ecause I'm in a program, I'm a house manager," a job that "keeps me busy all the time." Pressed further, he said, "Well, you know what, I totally forgot about it, I'm not going to make up no excuses." Asked whether it was safe to say his annual registration obligation had "[k]ind of just skipped [his] mind," defendant answered, "Yes."
Defense counsel summed up his theory of the case in his argument to the jury: Counsel added:
A jury convicted defendant of one count of violating section 290(g)(2), based on his failure to update his registration within five working days of his birthday (see § 290, former subd. (a)(1)(C); now subd. (a)(1)(D)). The jury acquitted him of a second count of violating section 290(g)(2), which count alleged he had failed to register within five days of changing his residence (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)).
After denying defendant's motion for a new trial, the trial court dismissed all but one of his 10 prior strike convictions in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385. It then sentenced appellant to state prison for a total term of nine years as follows: the upper term of three years on count 1, doubled under the three strikes law to six years, plus three consecutive one-year terms as to the prior prison terms charged pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court observed that
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The statutory context in which this question arises was set forth by the Court of Appeal.
People v. Cox (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1371, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 (Cox) was the first case to address the question whether just forgetting to register may negate the willfulness requirement of section 290(g)(2). Cox held, "Once a person is made aware of the registration responsibility, he or she may not defend on the basis that the requirement simply `slipped' his or her mind." (Cox, at p. 1377, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 123.)
In reaching this conclusion, the Cox court found our decision in People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590 (Garcia) distinguishable. In Garcia, the defendant contended the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to make clear in its instructions to the jury that "a `willful' failure to register requires a finding that [a defendant] actually knew about his duty to register." (Id. at p. 751, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590.) The Attorney General responded that "actual knowledge is not an element of the offense, and that it was sufficient to find that the appropriate officers notified defendant of his duty, as required by section 290." (Ibid.)
We agreed with the defendant in Garcia. (Garcia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 752,107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590.) We concluded, however, the potentially misleading instructions given the jury with regard to the actual knowledge requirement were harmless beyond a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickey v. Davis
...is unfounded. It is axiomatic a decision does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court. (People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 354 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507] ; People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1071 [255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619] (Harris ).) The proposition ......
-
People v. Hofsheier
...P.3d 311; quoting Wright v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 527, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 322, 936 P.2d 101; People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 357, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507.) In recent years, section 290 registration has acquired a second purpose: to notify members of the public of......
-
People v. Dickey
...is unfounded. It is axiomatic a decision does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court. (People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 354, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507; People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1071, 255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619 (Harris).) The proposition adva......
-
People v. Chan
...(People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 752, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590, orig. italics; see People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th 345, 348, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507.) However, merely forgetting to register is not a defense to a section 290 charge. In People v. Barker, supra, 34 C......
-
What Did Mork Say to Mindy When He Forgot to Register? Pannu, Pannu! What Pannu v. Holder Reveals About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude and Failure-to-register Statutes
...even when one forgets the duty). 79. Id. at 144-45 (footnote omitted). 80. Id. at 145 (footnote omitted) (citing People v. Baker, 96 P.3d 507, 510 (Cal. 81. Id. at 146 (footnote omitted). 82. See id. at 145 (citations omitted) (stating that offenses such as child abuse, spousal abuse, and s......