California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law-Sentencing
 

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCING
Criminal Law Sentencing Case Summaries
 

■ People v. Ranscht, No. D052811

 In this case we address whether the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Hofsheier), that subjecting an offender convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a 16-year-old minor to mandatory lifetime sex offender registration violates equal protection, applies equally to an offender convicted of voluntary sexual penetration of a 13-year-old minor.  We conclude that mandating lifetime sex offender registration for an offender convicted of sexually penetrating a 13-year-old minor violates equal protection because a similarly situated offender convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a victim the same age would not face mandatory lifetime registration.  In doing so, we decline to follow the reasoning set forth in People v. Manchel (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Manchel).  Accordingly, we reverse and direct the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine whether defendant should be required to register as a sex offender.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            In September 2000, then 17-year-old Brylan Ranscht met the victim, then 12-year-old Emma H., and the two entered into a mutual romantic relationship.  Ranscht and Emma's relationship became physical, and in late 2000 and early 2001, then 18-year-old Ranscht digitally penetrated Emma's vagina on two separate occasions.  Emma was 12- or 13-years old on the dates of these events.

            In 2006, Emma revealed to her therapist that she had engaged in sexual conduct with Ranscht in 2000 and 2001.  At her parents' behest, Emma reported the incidents to the police.  The district attorney charged Ranscht with four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) and two counts of sexually penetrating a minor in violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (h).  (All statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

            In November 2007, Ranscht pleaded guilty to one count of sexually penetrating a minor in violation of section 289, subdivision (h).  The trial court dismissed the remaining counts pursuant to the plea agreement.  Ranscht's counsel objected to the mandatory section 290, subdivision (c) sex offender registration requirement, arguing that the California Supreme Court's decision in Hofsheier vested the court with discretion to determine whether to require registration for Ranscht's violation of section 289, subdivision (h).  The court, finding Hofsheier inapposite, declined to exercise its discretion.  The court sentenced Ranscht to probation and directed that he register as a sex offender.

DISCUSSION

            The United States and California Constitutions entitle all persons to equal protection of the laws.  (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7.)  This guarantee means "that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances[.]"  (People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 189, 196.)  A litigant challenging a statute on equal protection grounds bears the threshold burden of showing "that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner."  (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 530, italics in original.)  Even if the challenger can show that the classification differently affects similarly situated groups, "[i]n ordinary equal protection cases not involving suspect classifications or the alleged infringement of a fundamental interest," the classification is upheld unless it bears no rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.  (Weber v. City Council (1973) 9 Cal.3d 950, 958-959.)

■ HELD:

Trial court order imposing mandatory sex offender registration on defendant under Penal Code sec. 290 (c) based on his conviction for sexually penetrating a 13-year-old minor is reversed and remanded where mandating lifetime sex offender registration violates defendant's equal protection rights as a similarly situated offender convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a victim the same age would not face mandatory lifetime registration.
People v. Ranscht-D052811-5/15/09 CA4/1
People v. Ranscht-D052811- 5/15/09 CA4/1

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory