Judges: W.A. DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General of Oklahoma
Filed Date: 6/3/2003
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Dear District Attorney Virginia D. Sanders
¶ 0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:
I.1. Is it lawful for the terms and conditions of a judgment and sentence to provide that a defendant who meets the statutory requirements for registration under Oklahoma's Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S. 2001 Supp. 2002, §§ 581-589, is not required to register?
2. Is a judgment and sentence legally enforceable which provides that a defendant who meets the statutory requirements for registration under 57 O.S. 2001 Supp. 2002, §§ 581-589, is not required to register?
Oklahoma's Sex Offenders Registration Act Mandates That Offenders Who Meet Certain Statutory Requirements Register As Sex Offenders With The Oklahoma Department Of Corrections And Local Law Enforcement.
¶ 1 In 1989 the Oklahoma Legislature adopted the Sex Offenders Registration Act ("Act"). 1989 Okla. Sess. Laws ch.
A. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, Section 581 et seq. of this title, shall apply to any person residing, working or attending school within the State of Oklahoma who, after November 1, 1989, has been convicted, whether upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea of nolo contendere, or received a suspended sentence or any probationary term for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime provided for in Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation as those terms are defined in Section 7102 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 681, if the offense involved sexual assault, 741, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 843.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, 865 et seq., 885, 886, 888, 891, 1021, 1021.2, 1021.3, 1040.13a, 1040.51, 1087, 1088, 1111.1, 1114 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Id. The Act also applies to those who reside, work or attend school in Oklahoma, and who have been convicted or received a suspended or deferred judgment in another state, a federal court, an Indian tribal court or a military court. Id. §§ 582(B), (C); 583(B). Specific provisions of the Act apply to those persons. However, the distinctions between the different categories of offenders are not important to an analysis of the questions you have presented.
¶ 2 Section 583(A) specifically provides that "[a]ny person who becomes subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act on or after November 1, 1989, shall beregistered," then proceeds to discuss the requirements for registration. (Emphasis added). Those who are subject to the Act are required to register with the Department of Corrections (id. § 583(A)(1)), and with the local law enforcement authority having jurisdiction in the area where the person resides or intends to reside for more than seven days. Id. § 583(A)(2). Generally, the persons "shall be required to register for a period of ten (10) years" and the information is to be retained by the registering authority for at least ten years. Id. § 583(C), (D) (emphasis added).
¶ 3 The Legislature has provided a penalty for those who fail to register. Title 57 O.S. 2001, § 587[
Any person required to register pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, Section 581 et seq. of this title, who violates any provision of said act shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by incarceration in a correctional facility for not more than five (5) years, a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment.
Id.
¶ 4 You first ask whether it is lawful for the terms and conditions of a judgment and sentence to provide that a defendant who meets the statutory requirements for registration under the Act is not required to register. It is clear from the statutory provisions that a defendant who falls within the terms of the Act is required to register. 57 O.S. Supp. 2002, §§ 582[
¶ 5 The mandatory nature of registration for statutorily-defined offenders is also evident when the Act is reviewed in light of other statutory provisions. The Legislature has created a separate registration act for juveniles, the Juvenile Sex Offender Registration Act ("Juvenile Act"). See10 O.S. Supp. 2002, §§ 7308-1.1-7308.1.13. The Juvenile Act at Section 7308-1.4(A) provides that "[w]hen a person meets the definition of a juvenile sex offender pursuant to Section 7308-1.2 of this title, the district attorney may make anapplication to include the juvenile in the juvenile sex offenderregistry." (Emphasis added). Section 7308-1.4(A) then discusses the procedures for placing a juvenile on the registry, including the appointment of a panel to "evaluate the juvenile and report to the court on the treatment prognosis and likelihood that the juvenile offender represents an ongoing serious or aggressive threat to the public or children under sixteen (16) years of age." Id.
¶ 6 The Juvenile Act provides that "[t]he court shall, after consideration of the evaluation report required by subsection A of this section, make a finding of whether the juvenile offender represents an ongoing serious or aggressive threat to the public or children under sixteen (16) years of age." Id. § 7308.1.4(B). When "the court finds the juvenile represents such threat, the court shall order the juvenile to register on the juvenile sex offender registry." Id.
¶ 7 The contrast between the two acts makes it clear that the Legislature intended that registration for juveniles be discretionary on the part of the district attorney, but that registry for those who meet the statutory requirements of Title 57 be mandatory. Thus, a judgment and sentence may not lawfully state that a defendant who meets the requirements for Title 57 registration is not required to register.
The Legislature finds that sex offenders who commit other predatory acts against children and persons who prey on others as a result of mental illness pose a high risk of re-offending after release from custody. The Legislature further finds that the privacy interest of persons adjudicated guilty of these crimes is less important than the state's interest in public safety. The Legislature additionally finds that a system of registration will permit law enforcement officials to identify and alert the public when necessary for protecting the public safety.
Id.
¶ 9 The Legislature made it clear that the purpose of the Act is to protect the public from sex offenders. Criminal prosecutions, however, punish the offenders for violating criminal laws. Garrity v. Fiedler,
¶ 10 Under Oklahoma law, a judge sentencing a criminal defendant is limited to the powers articulated by statute. SeeNevious v. State,
¶ 11 Title 22 O.S. 2001, § 991a[
¶ 12 In Section 991a the only references to the Sex Offenders Registration Act are subsections (A)(1)(ee) and (A)(10). Section 991a(A)(1)(ee) allows the court, "in the case of a sex offender sentenced after November 1, 1989, and required by law to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act," to order offenders to participate in a treatment program, delineating the court's powers in addition to suspending sentences. Section 991a(A)(10) orders offenders to participate in a treatment program and sets forth general sentencing powers, independent of suspension. While these provisions give a sentencing judge the option of ordering participation in a treatment program, they do not give the court the option of exempting an offender from registration.
¶ 13 Thus, a court is without authority to order, through a judgment and sentence, that those persons statutorily defined by the Legislature as sex offenders subject to registration are not required to register.
¶ 15 The Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear in other situations that sentences which are not within the range of punishment provided by law are void. See Robertson,
¶ 16 The distinction between void and voidable sentences was discussed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Bumpus v.State,
¶ 17 A court's sentencing powers do not include the authority to order a nonpunitive measure, such that a defendant is not required to register under the Act. A trial court exceeds its sentencing authority as a matter of law when it exempts from registration a defendant who is otherwise required to register. No extrinsic evidence is needed to prove that the judgment and sentence is in error. Thus, the portion of a judgment and sentence exempting a defendant from registration is void and unenforceable.
¶ 18 You have not specifically asked, and this Opinion does not address, the situation where the portion of the judgment and sentence exempting a defendant from registration has induced a guilty plea from a defendant. In such situations, the proper inquiry is whether a criminal defendant's guilty plea has been made knowingly and voluntarily. Berget v. State,
1. Registration as a sexual offender is mandatory for individuals who are statutorily required to register pursuant to the terms of Oklahoma's Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S. 2001 Supp. 2002, §§ 581-589. A court may not, as part of a judgment and sentence, exempt a criminal defendant from registration.
2. A trial court is without sentencing authority under 22 O.S. 2001, § 991a[
22-991a ] to order that a criminal defendant, who meets the statutory requirements for registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, is exempt from registration, and the portion of a judgment and sentence which states that such a defendant is not required to register is void and therefore unenforceable.3. To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be entered knowingly and voluntarily with "a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence." Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238 , 244 (1969). Whether a guilty plea fails to meet the requirements of being knowing and voluntary because a defendant has been induced to plead guilty based on assurances that he will not be required to register as a sex offender is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and is not capable of being answered in an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S. 2001, § 18b(A)(5).W.A. DREW EDMONDSON Attorney General of Oklahoma
SANDRA D. RINEHART Senior Assistant Attorney General
State v. Legg , 28 Kan. App. 2d 203 ( 2000 )
Smith v. Doe , 123 S. Ct. 1140 ( 2003 )
Robertson v. State , 66 O.B.A.J. 372 ( 1995 )
Daniel J. Garrity v. Patrick Fiedler , 41 F.3d 1150 ( 1994 )
Bailey v. State , 1987 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 284 ( 1987 )
Nevious v. State , 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 13 ( 1989 )
State v. Martin , 2001 Alas. App. LEXIS 24 ( 2001 )
Davis v. State , 64 O.B.A.J. 94 ( 1993 )
In Re Habeas Corpus of Brewster , 1955 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 222 ( 1955 )
Stafford v. State , 61 O.B.A.J. 2975 ( 1990 )
Ex Parte Custer , 88 Okla. Crim. 154 ( 1948 )
People v. McMurrey , 2001 Colo. App. LEXIS 1887 ( 2001 )
Boykin v. Alabama , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ( 1969 )