Skip to content
Name: People v. Manchel
Case #: B202222
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 06/10/2008

Mandatory sex offender registration for a conviction of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(2) did not deny appellant equal protection. After appellant pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(2) (oral copulation with a minor under 16), he was ordered to register as a sex offender for life under section 290. He later sought relief from his registration obligation under People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, where the California Supreme Court found the registration requirement for section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) a violation of equal protection. The appellate court declined to extend the holding of Hofsheier to convictions under section 288a, subdivision (b)(2). Hofsheier involved a situation where (1) the victim was under 18 years, but over 16; (2) the defendant was more than 3 years older than the minor, but less than 10; and (3) registration hinged on the distinction of whether the sexual conduct was oral copulation or sexual intercourse. In contrast, appellant’s victim was 15, and he was at least 10 years older, thereby bringing him within the prohibitions of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1) (lewd and lascivious act where the perpetrator is at least ten years older than the victim), which makes registration mandatory regardless of whether the act involves intercourse or oral copulation. As such, appellant could not show that he was similarly situated to a group of offenders who are not subject to mandatory sex registration. (But see People v. Garcia (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 475.)