Penal Code section 288.3, subdivision (a), (communication with minor with knowledge and intent to commit specified sex offense) is not unconstitutional. Appellant was convicted of section 288.3, following presentation of evidence that he left sexually explicit writings in his stepdaughters bedroom. The appellate court found no constitutional violation because (1) the statute does not restrict freedom of movement; (2) it clearly sets forth the prohibited conduct; (3) it targets only that speech having the prohibited unlawful sexual intent; and (4) it does not violate equal protection because those who violate the statute are not similarly situated to other offenders.
The statute does not violate the single-subject rule. Proposition 83, from which the statute stems, contains only a single subject, i.e., to protect Californians from the threat of sex offenders, and, thus, does not violate the single-subject rule.
The statute is not a greater offense to section 288.4. Because section 288.4 has a required separate element of arranging a meeting with the minor, it is not a lesser offense to section 288.3.