U.S. v. Leach, No. 10–1786.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | WOOD, Circuit Judge. |
Citation | 639 F.3d 769 |
Docket Number | No. 10–1786. |
Decision Date | 03 May 2011 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Donald LEACH, Defendant–Appellant. |
639 F.3d 769
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Donald LEACH, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 10–1786.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Oct. 18, 2010.Decided May 3, 2011.
[639 F.3d 770]
John M. Maciejczyk, Office of the United States Attorney, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellee.Mark S. Lenyo, South Bend, IN, for Defendant–Appellant.Before POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge. *WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Donald Leach moved from Indiana to South Carolina in late 2008 without promptly notifying government officials in either state. This would be unremarkable if Leach had not been convicted of a sex offense in 1990, but he had. That conviction triggered a requirement pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), to register with Indiana and South Carolina authorities when he moved across state lines. Unbeknownst to Leach, an anonymous caller reported to Indiana officials that Leach had moved out of state shortly after his departure. In February
[639 F.3d 771]
2009, Leach tardily passed the same information along to the Indiana child support enforcement office. At no time did he register with the authorities in South Carolina. The following week, a deputy United States Marshal and a local officer arrested Leach, who was then returned to Indiana, where he was indicted for knowingly failing to register as a sex offender after traveling in interstate commerce in violation of SORNA. Leach moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States and Indiana Constitutions. The district court denied Leach's motion to dismiss, and Leach entered a conditional guilty plea while preserving his right to appeal that sole issue. We find no ex post facto violation and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The material facts in this case are not disputed. Donald Leach was convicted of child molestation, a Class C felony under Indiana law, on April 11, 1990. Just before his release from prison in 1994, Indiana's first sex offender registration statute went into effect. Although the state law obliged Leach to register upon his release from prison, he failed to register at that time. In 2004, Leach was again released from an Indiana prison on an unrelated theft conviction. At that time, Leach signed State Form 46656, “Notification of Requirement to Register with Law Enforcement as Sex/Violent Offender.” He registered that year with the Wabash County Sheriff's Department. In 2007, he signed a similar form reiterating Indiana's registration requirements and specifying that if he changed his residence he would be required to register in his new county of residence within three working days. On September 9, 2008, Leach registered again with the Wabash County Sheriff's sex offender registration office. When he moved to South Carolina later that year, however, Leach failed to update his registration with Indiana authorities or register in South Carolina.
On July 27, 2006, Congress passed SORNA “to protect the public from sex offenders” by establishing a “comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders” as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. See 42 U.S.C. § 16901. SORNA imposes a federal obligation on all sex offenders to register in each jurisdiction where he resides, works, and goes to school. § 16913(a). (We understand this to require registration in each of these places, if they are different; it would make no sense to think that registration is necessary only if all three happen to be in the same jurisdiction.) The statute makes it a federal crime for any person who is required to register and travels in interstate commerce knowingly to fail to register or update a registration. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The government charged Leach for a knowing failure to register and update his registration after traveling in interstate commerce from January 6, 2009, to February 20, 2009. Leach conditionally pleaded guilty to the single-count indictment and the district court imposed a 27–month term of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. This appeal followed.
As a preliminary matter, the district court correctly concluded that venue was proper in the Northern District of Indiana even though Leach was arrested in South Carolina. Some may find this surprising, since the Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
[639 F.3d 772]
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed....” U.S. Const. amend. VI. For purposes of SORNA, however, a sex offender violates the statute only when he travels across state lines and fails to register. See Carr v. United States, –––...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consiglio v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation, Docket Nos. 1–12–1142
...as the requirement bears some reasonable relationship to the legitimate interest of public health and safety); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding new Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (18 U.S.C. §2250(a)(2006) was not retroactive merely [370 Ill.......
-
Bhalerao v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulations, Case No. 11–CV–7558.
...attend school, notify government officials when changing residence, and provide personal identifying information. United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir.2011). The court identified Leach's complaint in terms that mirror an argument advanced by Dr. Bhalerao: that the law at issue “eff......
-
Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 125
...citizens with information about the whereabouts of sex offenders and assisting law enforcement in locating them”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir.2011) (observing that SORNA “is, in fact, regulatory”); United States v. Young, 585 F.3d 199, 204–06 (5th Cir.2009) (per curi......
-
Shannon v. Comm'r of Hous., No. 19562.
...(1922) (“[a] statute is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir.2011) (statute that “creates new, prospective legal obligations based on the person's prior history” is not retrospective).Under......
-
Consiglio v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation, Docket Nos. 1–12–1142
...as the requirement bears some reasonable relationship to the legitimate interest of public health and safety); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding new Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (18 U.S.C. §2250(a)(2006) was not retroactive merely [370 Ill.......
-
Bhalerao v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulations, Case No. 11–CV–7558.
...attend school, notify government officials when changing residence, and provide personal identifying information. United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir.2011). The court identified Leach's complaint in terms that mirror an argument advanced by Dr. Bhalerao: that the law at issue “eff......
-
Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 125
...citizens with information about the whereabouts of sex offenders and assisting law enforcement in locating them”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir.2011) (observing that SORNA “is, in fact, regulatory”); United States v. Young, 585 F.3d 199, 204–06 (5th Cir.2009) (per curi......
-
Shannon v. Comm'r of Hous., No. 19562.
...(1922) (“[a] statute is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 773 (7th Cir.2011) (statute that “creates new, prospective legal obligations based on the person's prior history” is not retrospective).Under......
-
Seventh Circuit Announces A New Standard For Analyzing Violations Of The Ex Post Facto Clause
...decided the first prong of that analysis'that is, whether a law was retroactive'by applying a rule adopted in United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2011), and Vasquez v. Foxx, 895 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2018). The upshot of the Leach-Vasquez rule was that a law was not retroactive if i......