On June 10, 2008, the California Court of Appeals issued its decision in People v. Manchel,[1] holding that a convicted felon who was required to register as sex offender could not escape the registration requirement merely because he engaged in oral copulation rather than sexual intercourse. The Court held that it was irrelevant that Joseph Manchel, 29 at the time, was similarly situated to another group of offenders who are not subject to mandatory registration because he was so much older than his victim. This case has important implications for law enforcement and agencies charged with the responsibility of sex offender registration.
Joseph Manchel pled guilty to oral copulation with a 15 year old girl and was convicted under Penal Code Section 288a(b)(2). Manchel was granted probation on the condition that he register annually as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290.005(d)(4), which mandates that a person convicted under Penal Code Section 288a register as a sex offender for as long as he resides in California. Shortly thereafter, Manchel challenged this requirement, claiming that mandatory registration for the offense he committed denied him equal protection of the laws according to the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Hofsheier.[2]
In Hofsheier, the California Supreme Court noted that an adult convicted of oral copulation with a minor 16 to 17 years old under Penal Code Section 288a(b)(1) triggered the mandatory registration requirement. However, an adult convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor 16 to 17 years old is not subject to mandatory registration. The high court held there was no rational basis for distinguishing between those who engage in oral copulation with a minor from those who engage in voluntary intercourse with a minor of the same age. Accordingly, the high court ruled that equal protection is violated when the law imposes a mandatory life time registration for oral copulation with a minor but no such registration requirement for engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor.
In this case, Manchel argued that if he had engaged in sexual intercourse with his victim, instead of oral copulation, he would have been guilty under Penal Code Section 261.5(d) and would not be subject to mandatory sex offender registration. However, the court found that Manchel’s conduct would have violated Penal Code Section 288(c)(1), which states: “Any person who commits [a specified lewd or lascivious act], and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment….” A person convicted under Section 288(c)(1) is subject to the mandatory registration requirement pursuant to Section 290(c)(1). The court distinguished Hofsheier on the ground of age: Manchel was 10 years older than his 15 year old victim and was thus subject to mandatory registration requirements due to this age discrepancy alone.
Accordingly, Hofsheier does not extend to situations where the sexual conduct required mandatory registration, regardless of whether it was sexual intercourse or copulation. For any questions regarding sex offender registration please contact Roger Colvin at (562) 699-5500.
——————————————————————————————
[1] 2008 DJDAR8499.
[2] (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185.
