Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez wrote that the California Legislature overlooked public safety when it comes to minors convicted of sexual assault.
The justice’s words come from the case of a Riverside County 17-year-old who raped his 7-year-old cousin in 2020, but was not required to register as a sex offender. Going forward, under recent California law, minors convicted of sexual assault will not be required to register as sex offenders.
“For juvenile offenders, the Legislature appears to have determined that the risk of recidivism is low enough and the detrimental effects of sex offender registration high to justify no sex offender registration given their age and the amenability of juveniles to the types of treatment offered in local secure facilities.”
Court of Appeal
Ramirez wrote that the legislation fails to strike a balance between public safety and rehabilitation.
“In its zeal to (ensure) for juvenile offenders the opportunity to be rehabilitated without the disabilities accompanying a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice or a conviction as an adult, which would require sex offender registration, the safety of the public and the trauma to the victim have been overlooked,” Ramirez wrote.
Probation and registration
The teen in the case was arrested after his cousin reported the assault the following day, and the teen was charged in juvenile court.
The probation department said the teen would have three possible rehabilitation programs. One, a local program called Pathways to Success, would not require registration as a sex offender after completion. Another, run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, would require registration as a sex offender. The state program was closing down in 2023, after the legislature decided to close it down in favor of local programs. The probation officer recommended the teen be placed in Pathways.
The Riverside District Attorney’s Office requested the court require the teen to register as a sex offender, but the court denied the request.
“If the minor is not committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections, they cannot be ordered to register as a sex offender,” the court wrote. “And if they wanted minors to now register after completing a local program, they could have ordered that, and they did not,” the court continued.
Appellate decision
The decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, agreed. The appellate court found that the state decided to close the state program in favor of local programs to lower recidivism rates.
“Evidence has demonstrated that justice system-involved youth are more successful when they remain connected to their families and communities. Justice system-involved youth who remain in their communities have lower recidivism rates and are more prepared for their transition back into the community,” the court quoted the legislature.
The court further found that the legislature believes juvenile offenders should not register as sex offenders.
“For juvenile offenders, the Legislature appears to have determined that the risk of recidivism is low enough and the detrimental effects of sex offender registration high to justify no sex offender registration given their age and the amenability of juveniles to the types of treatment offered in local secure facilities,” the court said.
Ramirez’s concurring opinion
Ramirez’s opinion agreed with the majority opinion and Riverside Superior Court in their interpretation of the law, but said the law was changed without considering public safety. Ramirez also argued that the pendulum had been on the side of public safety and far away from rehabilitation just 22 years ago.
“While the legislation embodies the laudable concern for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, it is not counterbalanced by concern for public safety (which was responsible for the massive overhaul by Proposition 21, in 2000, providing prosecutors with discretion to directly file criminal charges in adult court against minors of the age of 14 or older). The pendulum has now swung 180 degrees in the opposite direction,” Ramirez wrote.
Case information
District Attorney Michael Hestrin and Deputy District Attorney Natalie Lough prosecuted.
Public Defender Steven Harmon and Deputy Public Defender William Meronek defended the teen.
Riverside Superior Judges Mark Petersen and Bonnie Dumanis presided.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Associate Justice Carol Codrington wrote the opinion, which Associate Justice Art McKinster joined.
Riverside Superior Court Case No. SWJ2000222.
Appellate Case No. E077783.
Read the ruling here.
