PEOPLE v. MOSLEY

Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

Cal.November 17, 2010

Mee IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF. THE’ STATE OF | 8187965 CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, Court ofAppeal No. G038379 v. (Orange County Superior Court No. 0SNF4105) _ STEVEN LLOYD MOSLEY, Defendant and Appellant. SUPREME COURT cH en ‘OVE? , ANSWERTO PETITION FOR REVIEW NOV ES 2010 Fredericn rs, wraticn Clerk Deputy ALLISON H. TING, SB 164933 LawOffice ofAllison H.Ting 1158 26"Street, # 609 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel. & Fax.: (310) 826-4592 Attorney for Appellant by appointment of the Court ofAppeal under Appellate Defender's Inc., independent case system IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF S187965 CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, Court ofAppeal No. G038379 V. (Orange County Superior Court No. 05NF4105) STEVEN LLOYD MOSLEY, Defendant and Appellant. ANSWERTO PETITION FOR REVIEW ALLISON H. TING, SB 164933 Law Office ofAllison H. Ting 1158 26" Street, # 609 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel. & Fax.: (310) 826-4592 Attorney for Appellant by appointment of the Court ofAppeal under Appellate Defender's Inc., independent case system TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT u.wcccsscssssssssssssssessussssessesssscsssssssesseccsereeeececseseeces, 1 ANSWERTO QUESTIONPRESENTED..scssssssssssesssssssessstestsssteeeeeecoeeeceec 1 THE OPINION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE CITED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON ANY IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LAW. Witeseeseeeseceeseceseneceensseessesssnseseeeestenssessecssscssssssessessssesessssassssunsssvussecsesstatersesersesenseecesees2 CONCLUSION....cesseessssesssessecssseessecssscsssusssusessuvenussssussiusssesssassisssaestueceseceseeescccecce4 TABLE OFAUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) S30 US. 466 woececcsesssssescesssssessesssesseseeatsussesessssssssssssereusesesesesesesces. 1,3 Boykin v. Alabama(1969). 395 U.S. 238 vcccccessscsssesessssesscsscssssesssssassussrsassrsasassssessssersatersessesescececescc,3 CALIFORNIA CASES Inre Alva (2004) 33 Cal.254.cccccescsssssseeeeceesseeesosescssusecsnusecensessusesisecsssecsssesssuecanecessaes2 People v. Barragan (2004) 32 CalAth 236 oeseccecsccssssssssesesssessstssssassessesaesusasaresssssassusessecetseceseececesce.2 People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.785..ccssssssssscsssssssssssasssssensssssssenssssessesssssssesessessesesesssssee2 People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 CalAM L185. ceescsesssessesesessssssssrssesassussesatsssssssssssssatsusessececcecesceseceece.2 People v. Picklesimer (2010) A8 Cal.4™ 330 ......scsssssssssssesseesssusssssssssusssssssnsssessesesssesssssssesssssesesevee 3,4 CALIFORNIA STATUTES Penal Code § 290.006 .....eccccccsccsssssesssssssssssesssstssssessssscesersesecsesesceccececce, 1,3 Penal Code § 3003.5, subd. (b)....ccscsssssssssssesssessecsssssessussssssessesssessucsscsesceseesececeesen. 2 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF! S187965 CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, G038379 V (Orange County . Superior Court STEVEN LLOYD MOSLEY, No. 05NF4105) Defendant and Appellant. TO THE HONORABLE RONALDM. GEORGE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLEASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Pursuantto rule 8.500, subdivision (a)(2) of the California Rules of Court, appellant makes this Answerto the Petition for Review filed November5, 2010. | ANSWER TO QUESTION PRESENTED Jessica’s Law residencyrestriction renders discretionarily imposed sex-offenderregistration pursuant to Penal Codesection 290.006 unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466,in the absenceofajury trial, or waiver thereof, on the facts required to support the registration order. THE OPINION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE CITED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ONANY IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LAW The Petition for Review states the Court ofAppeal decision “conflicts with decisions of this Court on an important question of law involving enforcement ofconstitutionally valid sex-offender registration.” (Pet’n,, p. 3.) Appellant disagrees. Respondent’s Petition cites People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4" 1185, 1197, In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4 254, 268, and People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4™ 785, 796,for the proposition that “sex- offender registration does not constitute punishment.” (Pet’n., p. 4.) But, as the Opinion notes, “the effect ofsex offender registration changed when the voters approved Jessica’s Law in 2006.”' (Pet’n. Attachment, p. 17, italics added.) Hofsheier, Castellanos, and Alva addressed issues in cases pre-dating passage of Jessica’s Law. Thus, they had no occasion to consider whether sex-offenderregistration now involves a new and onerous burden. It is well established that cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein. (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 243.) “Jessica’s Law,” codified at Penal Code section 3003.5, subdivision (b), was approvedbythe passage of Proposition 83, the “Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law.” Because sex-offender registration now triggers Jessica’s Law residency restriction, which is punitive in effect, the underlying facts must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Apprendiv. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466), or the facts maybe admitted (see generally Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-244). Thus, there is no conflict between the decision below and any ofthe three cases above. Respondent’s Petition also cites People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4® 330, 344, for the proposition that “whether the residencyrestriction is valid does not affect whetherthe registration requirementis valid.” (Pet’n., p. 4.) “In other words, even if the residencyrestriction is invalid, a trial court maystill order sex-offender registration pursuantto section 290.006.” (Pet’n., p. 5.) But the Opinion below does not addressthe question whether Jessica’s Law is “valid”or “invalid.” It never says Jessica’s Law onits face is unconstitutional, or invalid. It simply says Jessica’s Law is punitive, and is a new consequenceofsex-offender registration, which makes sex- offender registration punitive. But punitive measuresare not unconstitutional, so longas thetriggering facts are provedto a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted. Thetriggering facts for imposition of Jessica’s Law ona person not subject to mandatoryregistration are found in Penal Codesection 290.006: “, .. that the person committed the offense as a result ofsexual compulsion orforpurposes ofsexualgratification.” (Italics added.) Submission of these factual questionsto a jury is what the Opinion requires. Nothing aboutthis holding conflicts with Picklesimer. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, appellant asks this court to deny review ofthis matter. Dated: November15, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Allison H. Ti Attorney for WORD-COUNT CERTIFICATE I, Allison H. Ting, counsel for respondent, certify pursuant to the California Rules of Court, that the word count for this document is 986 words, excluding the tables, this certificate, and any attachment permitted under rule 8.204(c)(1). This document was prepared with Word, andthisis the word count generated by the program for this document. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, on Allison H. Ting) Attorney for Appellant November15, 2010. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL RE: People v. STEVEN LLOYD MOSLEY, 8187965; Case No. G038379; Orange County Superior Court No. 0SNF4105 I, Allison H. Ting, declare that I am over 18 years of age, and nota party to the within cause; my businessaddress is 1158 26th Street, # 609, Santa Monica, CA 90403; I served a copy ofthe attached: ANSWERTO PETITION FOR REVIEW on each ofthe following, by placing samein an envelope(s) addressed as follows: Attorney General P.O. Box 85266 STEVEN LLOYD MOSLEY San Diego, CA 92186-5266 (addressonfile) Appellate Defenders, Inc. Court of Appeal, 4"Dist./Div.3 555 Beech Street, # 300 P.O. Box 22055 San Diego, CA 92101-2939 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Kal Kaliban, Deputy DA Office of District Attorney 401 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Clerk for Delivery to: Honorable David Hoffer, Judge Orange County Superior Court 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92702 Each said envelope was then, on November 15, 2010, sealed and deposited in the United States Mail at Los Angeles, California, with the postage thereon fully prepaid. I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoingis true and correct. Executed on November 15, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. (Qe. Declarant O