Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library

Filed 3/6/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S124636
v.
) Ct.App.
6
H026217
VINCENT PETER HOFSHEIER,
Santa Cruz County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. F07121

Defendant, a 22-year-old man, pled guilty to oral copulation with a 16-
year-old girl in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) (hereafter
section 288a (b)(1).)1 Under section 290, anyone convicted of certain sexual
offenses, including a violation of section 288a (b)(1), must, while residing in
California, register for life as a sex offender with the appropriate law enforcement
agency. Defendant was therefore ordered to register as a sex offender.
Defendant appealed. He contended that he was denied the constitutionally
guaranteed equal protection of the laws because a person convicted of unlawful
sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5) under the same circumstances would not
be subject to mandatory registration. The Court of Appeal agreed and ordered the
trial court’s order granting probation modified to eliminate the registration
requirement. Because the Court of Appeal’s holding conflicted with People v.

1
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

1

---

Jones (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 220 (Jones), we granted review to resolve the
conflict.
We now hold, in accord with the decision of the Court of Appeal in this
case, that to subject defendant to the mandatory registration requirement of section
290, subdivision (a)(1)(A) would deny defendant the equal protection of the laws.
We direct the Court of Appeal to remand the case to the trial court, however, to
exercise its discretion to determine whether defendant should be required to
register as a sex offender under section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E).
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On April 6, 2003, defendant engaged in voluntary oral copulation with a
16-year-old girl.2 Under a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to felony oral
copulation in violation of section 288a (b)(1) in return for dismissal of two
misdemeanor counts. Because of that guilty plea, the trial court denied
defendant’s request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that under the
circumstances of this case, defendant should not be subject to mandatory lifetime
registration as a sex offender. Counsel said: “It’s kind of ironic, because if he had
actually had sexual intercourse with [the minor] and was charged and convicted of

2
In this opinion, we use the term “voluntary” in a special and restricted sense
to indicate both that the minor victim willingly participated in the act and to the
absence of various statutory aggravating circumstances: the perpetrator’s use of
“force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury
on the victim or another person” (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)); the perpetrator’s
“threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person”
(§ 288a, subd. (c)(3)), and the commission of the act while the victim is
unconscious (§ 288a, subd. (f)) or intoxicated (§ 288a, subd. (i)).
2

---

statutory rape, he would not have to register under 290 of the Penal Code. It
seems to me that his conduct is less serious in that sort of a situation, yet the
statute seems to suggest that he is required to register for life. I think that is a
violation of equal protection under the laws and a violation of the California
Constitution . . . .”
The prosecutor responded that he would have no objection if defendant,
after completing probation, were to ask the trial court to have his felony
conviction reduced to a misdemeanor and to delete the requirement of lifetime
registration as a sex offender. The trial court asked: “Doesn’t it [the lifetime
registration requirement] seem a little out of whack here?” The prosecutor agreed:
“I think the law is out of whack. But that’s the law.” The trial court observed that
in applying the registration requirement here, the law did appear to be “out of
whack,” but said it could not “find on the face of it that it’s unconstitutional.”
After suspending imposition of sentence, the trial court granted defendant
probation on various conditions, including 120 days in county jail. It required
defendant to register as a sex offender, but it said that if defendant successfully
completed probation, he could seek to have his conviction reduced to a
misdemeanor, which “would relieve him from the registration requirement.”
Defendant appealed, pointing out that reducing his felony conviction to a
misdemeanor would not relieve him of his lifetime registration duty because
section 290 mandates lifetime registration for all persons convicted of violating
section 288a (b)(1), not only those sentenced as felons, as he was. (See § 290,
subd. (a)(1)(A) [all persons convicted of offenses listed in par. (2) must register
for life]; id., subd. (a)(2)(A) [listing offenses, including § 288a]; In re Alva (2004)
33 Cal.4th 254, 265, fn. 4 [only a gubernatorial pardon will relieve a defendant of
a lifetime registration requirement].) Defendant contended that under the facts
here imposition of mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender denied him
3

---

equal protection of the laws under the state and federal Constitutions because
someone convicted of unlawful intercourse under the same circumstances would
not face such mandatory registration. The Court of Appeal agreed, perceiving no
rational basis for distinguishing between voluntary oral copulation with a minor
and voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor. It affirmed defendant’s conviction
but modified the order granting probation to delete the lifetime registration
requirement. We granted the Attorney General’s petition for review.
II. THE RELEVANT STATUTES
A. Sections 288a and 261.5
Before 1921, oral copulation was prosecuted, along with sodomy and
bestiality, as “the infamous crime against nature.” (Stats. 1850, ch. 99, § 47,
p. 234, codified in 1872 as § 286.) The Legislature’s enactment of section 288a in
1921 made oral copulation a separate felony, punishable by an indefinite prison
term of one to 15 years. (Stats. 1921, ch. 848, § 2, p. 1633.) The 1921 statute
applied to all acts of oral copulation, but in 1975 the Legislature amended it to
exclude acts between consenting adults. (Stats. 1975, ch. 887, § 2, p. 1958.)
In its present form, section 288a provides a graduated scale of punishment
depending on the age of the parties and the presence or absence of force or other
coercion. Section 288a (b)(1), the provision under which defendant was convicted
of oral copulation with a 16-year-old girl, provides: “[A] person who participates
in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall
be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of
not more than one year.” Although section 288a (b)(1) applies to all acts of oral
copulation with a person under the age of 18, other provisions provide for greater
punishment for involuntary acts and acts involving younger victims. Thus, section
288a, subdivision (b)(2), provides that a person over 21 years of age who engages
in oral copulation with someone younger than 16 years of age is guilty of a felony,
4

---

and subdivision (c)(1) provides for still greater punishment -- three to eight years’
imprisonment -- for anyone who engages in oral copulation with someone under
the age of 14 who is more than 10 years younger than the defendant. Other
subdivisions specify imprisonment of three to eight years for forcible or
involuntary oral copulation. (§ 288a, subds. (c)(2) & (3), (f).) And section 288
provides that any lewd or lascivious act (including oral copulation) with a child
under the age of 14 is a felony punishable by three to eight years’ imprisonment.
Consequently, section 288a (b)(1) functions as the primary offense (as opposed to
being a lesser included offense) in only two instances: (1) when, as here, the act
of oral copulation is voluntary and the victim is 16 or 17 years old; and (2) when
the act is voluntary, the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the perpetrator is not over
21 years old. We are concerned here with the validity of the mandatory
registration requirement for the first category – voluntary acts of oral copulation
when the victim is 16 or 17 years of age.
Defendant compares section 288a (b)(1), which prohibits oral copulation
with a person under 18 years of age, with section 261.5, which prohibits “unlawful
sexual intercourse,” defined as an act of intercourse with a minor “not the spouse
of the perpetrator.” (§ 261.5, subd. (a).) Like section 288a (b)(1), section 261.5
also has a graduated scale of punishments. Subdivision (b) provides: “Any
person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is
not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.” Subdivision (c) states that any person who engages in
an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger
than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony. Subdivision (d)
provides that a person over the age of 21 who engages in unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 is guilty of a misdemeanor or a
felony punishable by two to four years’ imprisonment. Other statutes provide still
5

---

greater punishment for forcible or involuntary intercourse (rape). (§§ 261, 264,
266c.) If defendant here, a 22-year-old man, had engaged in voluntary sexual
intercourse with a 16-year-old girl, instead of oral copulation, he would have been
guilty of violating section 261.5, subdivision (c), but he would not face mandatory
sex offender registration.
In sum, both section 288a and section 261.5 follow a pattern of imposing
greater punishment on offenses involving younger victims, but the sentences
imposed at each age level are not identical. Depending on the age of the victim or
perpetrator, persons convicted of oral copulation with a minor are sometimes
subject to more severe sentences than persons convicted of unlawful intercourse
with a minor, often subject to the same sentence, and occasionally subject to less
severe sentences.3 Apart from the mandatory lifetime registration requirement,
voluntary sexual acts between a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old – whether oral
copulation or sexual intercourse – are treated identically; both can be punished as
either a felony or a misdemeanor.
B. Mandatory Lifetime Registration Under Section 290
Section 290 requires anyone convicted of certain sex offenses to register for
life as a sex offender. It provides: “Every person described in paragraph (2), for
the rest of his or her life while residing in . . . California . . ., shall be required to
register.” (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Paragraph (2) lists 37 Penal Code sections and

3
If a defendant over the age of 21 engages in oral copulation with a minor 14
or 15 years old, the crime is a felony with a maximum sentence of three years.
(§§ 18, 288a, subd. (b)(2).) If a defendant over the age of 21 engages in sexual
intercourse with a minor 14 or 15 years old, the crime can be treated as either a
felony or a misdemeanor; if it is treated as a felony the maximum sentence is four
years. (§ 261.5, subd. (d).)
6

---

subdivisions, including section 288a (oral copulation with a minor), but not
section 261.5 (unlawful intercourse with a minor).
“ ‘ “The purpose of section 290 is to assure that persons convicted of the
crimes enumerated therein shall be readily available for police surveillance at all
times because the Legislature deemed them likely to commit similar offenses in
the future. [Citation.]” ’ ” (In re Alva, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 264; quoting Wright
v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 527; People v. Barker (2004) 34 Cal.4th
345, 357.) In recent years, section 290 registration has acquired a second purpose:
to notify members of the public of the existence and location of sex offenders so
they can take protective measures. (See Stats. 1996, ch. 908, § 1, subd. (b),
p. 5105.)
Registration must be renewed annually within five working days of the sex
offender’s birthday. (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(D); see People v. Smith (2004) 32
Cal.4th 792; People v. Carmony (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1077.) Failure to
register, or to renew registration, can be either a felony or a misdemeanor,
depending on the nature of the underlying conviction. (§ 290, subds. (g)(1) &
(2).) The duty to register as a sex offender under section 290, subdivision (a),
cannot be avoided through a plea bargain (People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th
367) or through the exercise of judicial discretion. Moreover, although a
defendant convicted of oral copulation with a minor under section 288a (b)(1) may
be eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation under section 4852.01 after completing
his sentence, that certificate will not relieve the defendant of the lifetime
registration requirement. (In re Alva, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 265, fn. 4.)
Although sex offender registration is not considered a form of punishment
under the state or federal Constitution (In re Alva, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 268;
People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4th 785, 796 (lead opn. of George, C. J.)), it
imposes a “substantial” and “onerous” burden (People v. Castellanos, supra, 21
7

---

Cal.4th 785, 796 (lead opn. of George, C. J.); see In re Birch (1973) 10 Cal.3d
314, 321-322). If, as in this case, a person is convicted of a felony violation of
section 288a, the California Department of Justice will furnish the registrant’s
name and ZIP code to inquiring members of the public. (§ 290.4, subd. (a).)
When it becomes publicly known that a person is a registered sex offender, the
person may be at risk of losing employment, and may have difficulty finding a
place to live. (See Doe v. Miller (8th Cir. 2005) 405 F.3d 700; E.B. v. Verniero
(3d Cir. 1997) 119 F.3d 1077, 1089-1090; State v. Myers (Kan. 1996) 923 P.2d
1024, 1041; Center for Sex Offender Management, Community Notification and
Education (2001), pp. 14-15.)
C. Discretionary Registration Under Section 290
Unlike section 288a (oral copulation with a minor), section 261.5, which
pertains to unlawful intercourse with a minor, is not listed in section 290’s
mandatory lifetime registration provision, so a section 261.5 conviction is exempt
from that registration requirement. Section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E), however,
provides that a person convicted of “any offense not included specifically in
[section 290]” may be required to register “if the court finds . . . that the person
committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual
gratification.” If it requires registration, the trial court must “state on the record
the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.” (§ 290,
subd. (a)(2)(E); see Jones, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 227, fn. 6.) Consequently,
to implement the requirements of section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E), the trial court
must engage in a two-step process: (1) it must find whether the offense was
committed as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification,
and state the reasons for these findings; and (2) it must state the reasons for
requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender. By requiring a separate statement
of reasons for requiring registration even if the trial court finds the offense was
8

---

committed as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification,
the statute gives the trial court discretion to weigh the reasons for and against
registration in each particular case.
The principal difference between mandatory registration (§ 290, subd.
(a)(1)(A)) and discretionary registration (§ 290, subd. (a)(2)(E)) is, of course, that
the latter leaves the trial judge with the option of refusing to order registration.
But there are other differences. First, discretionary registration does not depend
on the specific crime for which a defendant was convicted. Instead, the trial court
may require a defendant to register under section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E) even
if the defendant was not convicted of a sexual offense. In People v. Olea (1997)
59 Cal.App.4th 1289, for example, a defendant convicted of burglary was required
to register for life as a sex offender because the trial court found that the defendant
had entered the victim’s residence intending to commit a sexual assault. In
summary, if a defendant is convicted of a crime listed under the mandatory
lifetime registration provision (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)), the trial court must impose
a registration requirement; under the discretionary provision (§ 290, subd.
(a)(2)(E)), it may require lifetime registration if it finds the crime to have a sexual
purpose.
Second, unlike a person charged with a sex offense requiring mandatory
lifetime registration as a sex offender under section 290, a defendant charged with
an offense that does not require such registration may be able to stipulate in a plea
bargain that the trial court judge will not order registration. (People v. Olea,
supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296.) In contrast, as we explained earlier, a person
convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor under section 288a (b)(1)
cannot avoid lifetime registration either through a plea bargain or through the
exercise of judicial discretion. The contrasting treatment of persons convicted of
9

---

oral copulation with minors and those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse
with minors raises the equal protection issue here.
III. EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS
The specific equal protection issue we face here involves the adult offender
convicted under section 288a (b)(1) of a voluntary sexual act with a minor 16
years or older, a group that includes defendant. State law requires all such
offenders to register for life as a sex offender. In contrast, an adult offender
convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor 16 years or older is not
subject to mandatory registration. The issue is whether this distinction violates the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution or of article I, section 7 of the California Constitution.
We are not here concerned with persons convicted of a crime involving a
forcible sexual act, or one involving a victim under the age of 14, because all such
persons must register as sex offenders irrespective of whether they engaged in oral
copulation or sexual intercourse. (See §§ 264 [rape], 288 [lewd or lascivious acts
with victim under the age of 14], 288a, subd. (c) (1) [oral copulation with a minor
under 14 years of age], 288a, subd. (c)(2) [forcible oral copulation], 290, subd.
(a)(2) [convictions requiring registration].)

A. The “Similarly Situated” Requirement
“The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection
clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or
more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.” (In re Eric J. (1979) 25
Cal.3d 522, 530; Cooley v. Superior Court (2000) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253.) The
Attorney General here contends that persons convicted of unlawful oral copulation
under section 288a (b)(1) and those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse
under section 261.5 are not similarly situated, because the two groups were
convicted of different crimes. (See People v. Barrera (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th
10

---

1555, 1565 and cases there cited.)
It may well be that in most cases, as the Attorney General contends,
persons who commit different crimes are not similarly situated, but there is not
and cannot be an absolute rule to this effect, because the decision of the
Legislature to distinguish between similar criminal acts is itself a decision subject
to equal protection scrutiny.4 “The Equal Protection Clause requires more of a
state law than nondiscriminatory application within the class it establishes.
[Citation.] It also imposes a requirement of some rationality in the nature of the
class singled out.” (Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966) 384 U.S. 305, 308-309; see People v.
Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 705, 714.) Otherwise, the state could arbitrarily
discriminate between similarly situated persons simply by classifying their
conduct under different criminal statutes. (See Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S.
558, 582 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.).)
In
State v. Limon (Kan. 2005) 122 P.3d 22, for example, the defendant had
been convicted of homosexual sodomy with a minor 14 or 15 years old. (Kan.
Stat. Ann. § 21-3505(a)(2).) A different statute (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3522)
prohibited heterosexual sodomy with a minor 14 or 15 years old, but it prescribed
a lesser penalty and did not require registration as a sex offender. The Kansas
Supreme Court held that the statutory distinction between homosexual and
heterosexual acts violated the equal protection clauses of the state and federal
Constitutions.

4
Indeed, the equal protection clause was created in part to nullify penal
codes in former slave states that classified offenses against Blacks as different
crimes, with lesser penalties, than offenses against Whites. (See Antieau, The
Original Understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment (1981) pp. 21-23.)

11

---

Under the equal protection clause, we do not inquire “whether persons are
similarly situated for all purposes, but ‘whether they are similarly situated for
purposes of the law challenged.’ ” (Cooley v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at
p. 253, quoting People v. Gibson (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1425, 1438.) In
Newland v. Board of Governors (1977) 19 Cal.3d 705, 711, for example, we
considered a statutory scheme for the restoration of a community college teaching
credential, a scheme that discriminated in favor of persons convicted of sexual
felonies as opposed to those convicted of sexual misdemeanors. The felons were
not only convicted of different crimes than the misdemeanants, but of crimes
based on substantively different conduct. We recognize that in many settings the
Legislature could rationally distinguish between felons and misdemeanants, often
to treat felons more severely. We nevertheless found that with respect to
restoration of community college teaching credentials the statutory scheme, by
discriminating against misdemeanants, lacked a rational basis and consequently
violated the state equal protection clause.
Turning to this case, section 288a (b)(1) and section 261.5 both concern
sexual conduct with minors. The only difference between the two offenses is the
nature of the sexual act. Thus, persons convicted of oral copulation with minors
and persons convicted of sexual intercourse with minors “are sufficiently similar
to merit application of some level of scrutiny to determine whether distinctions
between the two groups justify the unequal treatment.” (People v. Nguyen, supra,
54 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)
B. The Rational Relationship Test
In resolving equal protection issues, the United States Supreme Court has
used three levels of analysis. Distinctions in statutes that involve suspect
classifications or touch upon fundamental interests are subject to strict scrutiny,
and can be sustained only if they are necessary to achieve a compelling state
12

---

interest. Classifications based on gender are subject to an intermediate level of
review. But most legislation is tested only to determine if the challenged
classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. (See
Romer v. Evans (1996) 517 U.S. 620, 635; Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th
472, 481-482 (Kasler); Warden v. State Bar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 628, 641
(Warden).) Defendant here asserts that subjecting him to mandatory lifetime
registration for oral copulation with a 16-year-old girl, when a person convicted of
sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age would not be subject to such
registration, violates the rational relationship test.
In
Kasler, this court described the rational relationship test in these words:
“ ‘ “[I]n areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither
proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must
be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably
conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.
[Citations.] Where there are ‘plausible reasons’ for [the classification], ‘our
inquiry is at an end.’ ” ’ ” (Kasler, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 481-482; see Warden,
supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 644; both quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.
(1993) 508 U.S. 307, 313.)
In FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., supra, 508 U.S. at page 315, the
high court observed: “[T]hose attacking the rationality of the legislative
classification have the burden ‘to negative every conceivable basis which might
support it.’ ” But this is not an impossible task. The rationale must be “plausible”
(Warden, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 645) and the factual basis for that rationale must
be reasonably conceivable (id. at p. 644). And “even in the ordinary equal
protection case calling for the most deferential of standards, [courts must
ascertain] the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be
attained. The search for the link between classification and objective gives
13

---

substance to the Equal Protection Clause.” (Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 620,
632.) As the high court said in Nordlinger v. Hahn (1992) 505 U.S. 1, when it
upheld California’s Proposition 13 property tax assessment system, although it is
irrelevant whether the perceived reason for the challenged distinction actually
motivated the legislature, equal protection “does require that a purpose may
conceivably or ‘may reasonably have been the purpose and policy’ of the relevant
governmental decisionmaker” (id. at p. 15) and that “the relationship of the
classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or
irrational.” (Id. at p. 11.) Thus, as this court explained in Warden, supra, 21
Cal.4th 628, we must undertake “ ‘ “ ‘a serious and genuine judicial inquiry into
the correspondence between the classification and the legislative goals’ ” ’ ” (id. at
p. 647, quoting Newland v. Board of Governors, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 711) by
inquiring whether “ ‘the statutory classifications are rationally related to the
“realistically conceivable legislative purpose[s]” [citation] ’ . . . and . . . by
declining to ‘invent[] fictitious purposes that could not have been within the
contemplation of the Legislature . . . .’ ” (Warden, supra, at p. 648, quoting Fein
v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 163, italics omitted in
Warden.)
C. Asserted Rational Grounds for the Statutory Distinction
We now inquire whether there is a rational basis for the statutory
classification requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender by a person, such as
defendant, convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a 16-year-girl but not of a
person convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of that age. In
asserting such a rational basis, the Attorney General relies on two Court of Appeal
decisions that have rejected equal protection challenges to section 290’s
mandatory lifetime registration for certain sex offenders. Neither case, however,
describes a rational basis for the specific classification challenged here.
14

---

The more recent of the two cases, Jones, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 220,
involved the same constitutional issue as in this case. The Court of Appeal in
Jones rejected the defendant’s equal protection challenge because he failed to
show that requiring lifetime registration of persons convicted of oral copulation
with a minor (§ 288a (b)(1)) was not rationally related to the legitimate state
interest of making potential recidivists available for police surveillance. (Jones,
supra, at p. 229.) But the court’s reasoning did not respond to the defendant’s
equal protection contention. There may be a rational basis to require both adults
convicted of voluntary oral copulation with 16- or 17-year-old minors and adults
convicted of voluntary intercourse with minors of that same age to register as sex
offenders. But the defendant’s equal protection challenge in Jones, like the equal
protection challenge here, raised the issue whether the statutory distinction
between persons convicted of voluntary oral copulation and those convicted of
voluntary sexual intercourse rests on a rational basis. The Court of Appeal in
Jones did not describe any rational basis for the distinction.
In the earlier Court of Appeal decision, People v. Mills (1978) 81
Cal.App.3d 171, the defendant was convicted of lewd conduct with a victim under
14 years of age (§ 288). He argued that to require him to register for life as a sex
offender violated state and federal equal protection standards because some other
sex offenders, including those convicted of unlawful intercourse with minors 14 to
17 years old, were not required to register. The Court of Appeal held that the
Legislature could reasonably require all persons convicted of sexual offenses
involving victims under the age of 14 to register without requiring all sex
offenders to register. We agree with the Court of Appeal in Mills that the
defendant there failed to show a denial of equal protection as to adults convicted
of lewd acts with minors less than 14 years of age because all adults convicted of
crimes requiring sexual acts with minors of that age were required to register.
15

---

(See §§ 288, 288a, subd. (c), 290, subd. (a)(2).) But Mills does not affect the
decision in this case, for, in contrast to Mills, defendant here can point to similarly
situated persons, those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with minors 16 to
17 years old, who are not required to register.
In contending that there is a plausible rationale or a reasonably conceivable
factual scenario that would justify a distinction between those convicted of
voluntary oral copulation and those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse, the
Attorney General does not look back to 1947 when the lifetime registration
requirement was first enacted. Instead, he asserts there are new facts that provide
rational grounds for the Legislature today to require registration of adults
convicted of voluntary oral copulation with minors 16 or 17 years old, while not
requiring registration of adults convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with
minors of that age. He points to various media reports that oral copulation among
adolescents has increased in recent years because oral copulation involves no risk
of pregnancy and has a lesser risk of transmitting HIV.5 These media accounts,
however, discuss the sexual conduct between adolescents, not conduct between
adolescents and adults, as in this case. The frequency of voluntary oral copulation
or voluntary intercourse between adolescents has little relevance to the issue here.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General argues that it is “reasonably conceivable” that

5
The Attorney General cites: Denizet-Lewis, Friends, Friends with Benefits
and the Benefits of the Local Mall (May 30, 2004) New York Times Magazine,
page 30; Sanders, Talking Teen Sex (July 6, 2003) San Francisco Chronicle, page
E4; Kozlowski, More Teens Have Sex Than Parents Believe (Nov. 16, 2003) The
Detroit News, page 1A; Anthony, Today’s Young Girls Know Less About Sex
Than Teens a Decade Ago (Oct. 19, 2003) Toronto Star, page F07. These media
accounts are based on a study by the National Center for Health Statistics.
(Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Sexual Behavior and Selected Health
Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002 (2005).)
16

---

adults who engage in voluntary oral copulation with minors 16 or 17 years of age
are more likely to repeat their offense than adults who engage in voluntary sexual
intercourse with minors of the same age. He offers no evidence to support this
speculative assertion, but insists that the absence of empirical evidence that adults
convicted of voluntary oral copulation with 16- or 17-year-old minors are not
more likely to reoffend than adults convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with
such minors requires the courts to assume that the legislative distinction rests on a
reasonably conceivable set of facts.
But the absence of empirical evidence does not dictate the result. We must
still determine whether the asserted rationale for the statutory distinction at issue
rests on “plausible reasons,” or on “reasonably conceivable” facts that could
provide “rational” grounds for the classification (Warden, supra, 21 Cal.4th 628,
645), and not upon “fictitious purposes” that the Legislature could not have
contemplated (id. at p. 649). (See Newland v. Board of Governors, supra, 19
Cal.3d at p. 712 [holding that a statutory classification discriminating against
persons convicted of misdemeanors failed the rational relationship test because the
Legislature could not rationally have concluded that misdemeanants, as opposed to
felons, constituted a class of particularly incorrigible offenders who are beyond
hope of rehabilitation].)
We must also inquire into the relationship between the classification and
the statutory purpose. (See Nordlinger v. Hahn, supra, 505 U.S. 1, 12-14.)
Requiring all persons convicted of voluntary oral copulation with minors 16 to 17
years of age to register for life as a sex offender, while leaving registration to the
discretion of the trial court for those convicted of sexual intercourse with minors
of the same ages, cannot be justified by the speculative possibility that members of
the former group are more likely to reoffend than those in the latter group. To
sustain the distinction, there must be some plausible reason, based on reasonably
17

---

conceivable facts, why judicial discretion is a sufficient safeguard to protect
against repeat offenders who engage in sexual intercourse but not with offenders
who engage in oral copulation.6 (See D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 23 [possibility that some osteopaths received inadequate
training cannot sustain a law forbidding licensure of all osteopaths].) No reason
has been suggested why judicial discretion is insufficient, and none comes to
mind. No other state requires mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender for
anyone convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor 16 to 17 years of age,
but not for someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with minors of the
same age.7

6
The dissent characterizes our discussion of judicial discretion as a “public
policy debate.” (Dis. opn., post, at p. 10.) Here, however, it is an issue of
constitutional law. The purpose of section 290’s registration requirement is to
protect the public against repeat offenders. (See ante, p. 7.) If there is no plausible
reason, based on reasonably conceivable facts, why judicial discretion is sufficient
to protect against repeat offenders who engage in sexual intercourse but not
against repeat offenders who engage in oral copulation, then to deny the latter
group the recourse of judicial discretion denies them the equal protection of the
laws.

7
In 38 states, the age of consent is 16 years, or occasionally younger, so
voluntary sexual conduct with an adolescent 16 or 17 years of age is not a crime.
In the remaining 11 states, five require sex offender registration for persons
convicted of either voluntary oral copulation or voluntary sexual intercourse:
Arizona (see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3821(A)(4)); Illinois (see 730 Ill. Comp. Stat.
Ann. § 150/2); New Mexico (see N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-11 (2005)); North
Dakota (see N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-32-15, 12.1-20-05 (2005)); and Texas (see
Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.001 and Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11).
Louisiana and Tennessee require registration for some persons convicted of
statutory rape of a 16- or 17-year-old victim (see La. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 14.80;
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202(17)(A)(ii)), but they do not require registration of
persons convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years of
age. The other four states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Ohio) do not require
(Footnote continued on next page.)
18

---

No doubt there are some persons convicted of oral copulation with 16- or
17-year-old minors for whom lifetime registration is appropriate because their
conduct and criminal history suggest a high risk of recidivism, but the same can be
said of some individuals convicted of unlawful intercourse with minors in that
same age group. The existence of such potential recidivists under both statutes
argues for discretionary registration depending on the facts of the case rather than
mandatory registration for all persons convicted under section 288a (b)(1).
At oral argument, the Attorney General pointed to a 1997 Report of the
Assembly Committee on Public Safety, which in discussing a proposal to require
registration for persons convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, queried: “How
many [teenage] mothers would want the father of their child to plead guilty to
statutory rape and be subject to a [lifetime] registration requirement?” (Assem.
Com. on Public Safety, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1303 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.)
Apr. 22, 1997, p. 4.) The Attorney General asserts that the possibility of
pregnancy distinguishes voluntary sexual intercourse from voluntary oral
copulation, because requiring the father to register as a sex criminal might
stigmatize both the mother and the child, and might harm the father’s ability to
support his child.
As the Attorney General acknowledged at oral argument, however, persons
who engage in sexual intercourse often also engage in oral copulation. (In his
brief on the merits, the Attorney General argued for mandatory registration of
persons convicted of voluntary oral copulation because that act often leads to

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

registration of persons convicted of voluntary sexual acts with minors 16 or 17
years old.
19

---

sexual intercourse, and thus to teenage pregnancies.) The effect of the father’s
mandatory registration on the mother and child does not depend on whether the
registration is imposed for the act of sexual intercourse or the act of oral
copulation. The Attorney General’s argument offers a reason why neither
voluntary sexual intercourse nor voluntary oral copulation should entail
mandatory registration, but not a reason to distinguish between the two acts.
The dissent argues that defendant lacks standing to assert the constitutional
rights of persons who have been convicted of both voluntary oral copulation and
voluntary sexual intercourse. But defendant is not asserting the constitutional
rights of persons with dual convictions; he is contesting the logic of the Attorney
General’s contention that the distinction between persons convicted of voluntary
oral copulation and those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse is justified by
the possibility that intercourse will result in pregnancy. The point of defendant’s
argument is that if the possibility of pregnancy is a reason for avoiding mandatory
registration of persons convicted of sexual intercourse, the same reason for
avoiding mandatory registration applies to persons convicted of voluntary oral
copulation, because those persons may have also engaged in intercourse (whether
they were convicted of it or not) and a pregnancy may have resulted. In other
words, the possibility of pregnancy, and the concern that requiring the father to
register for life as a sex offender could stigmatize the mother or child, is a strong
argument for giving a court discretion to reject registration for persons convicted
of either voluntary sexual intercourse or voluntary oral copulation. It is not an
argument that distinguishes between the two crimes.
We recognize that the Legislature does not have to enact a comprehensive
statute dealing with all categories of sex offenders when it undertakes to create a
sex registration law such as section 290. In Kasler, supra, 23 Cal.4th 472, for
example, this court sustained an assault weapon ban against the claim that it was
20

---

unconstitutionally underinclusive because it did not include all weapons that might
be considered comparable to the banned weapons, observing that the Legislature
may take “ ‘ “one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem
which seems most acute to the legislative mind.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 488.)8 But the one-
step-at-a-time argument does not fit this case. The legislative distinction between
oral copulation and sexual intercourse dates from the Legislature’s initial
enactment of the sex registration laws in 1947. On three occasions in the last 10
years the Legislature considered and rejected proposals that would require
registration for sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of section 261.5. (See
Assem. Bill No. 3341 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 27, 1996; Assem.
Bill No. 1303 (1996-1997 Reg. Sess.); Assem. Bill No. 2320 (2000-2001 Reg.
Sess.).) It is apparent that the Legislature is not engaged in a process of fine-
tuning its sex offender registration statutes in a way that will eventually eliminate
the distinction between voluntary oral copulation with minors 16 to 17 years of
age and voluntary sexual intercourse with such minors. To the contrary, the
mandatory lifetime requirements for certain sex offenders in section 290 and
related statutes stand as a comprehensive, enduring statutory scheme – not a
temporary or pilot program – and the classifications it includes cannot be
sustained unless they rest on a rational basis.
The Attorney General’s arguments, moreover, are at odds with the current
purpose and structure of the mandatory registration provisions of section 290 and
the Penal Code provisions on sex crimes generally. In 1947, when the Legislature

8
Under our state Constitution’s equal protection clause, however, “when the
legislative body proposes to address an area of concern in less than comprehensive
fashion by ‘striking the evil where it is felt most’ [citation], its decision as to
where to ‘strike’ must have a rational basis in light of the legislative objectives.”
(Hays v. Wood (1979) 25 Cal.3d 772, 791.)
21

---

enacted section 290, voluntary oral copulation between adults was criminal
although voluntary adult intercourse was not. Today, however, statutes treat oral
copulation and intercourse similarly: Current laws provide for more severe
punishment and closer surveillance of persons who commit more serious sex
crimes, such as forcible sexual acts or sexual acts involving children under 14 (see
§§ 261 [rape], 262 [spousal rape], 288 [lewd conduct with victim under 14]) and
provides less serious punishment for voluntary acts involving older adolescents
(see §§ 261.5, 288a (b)(1)). Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons
convicted of voluntary oral copulation in violation of section 288a (b)(1) stands
out as an exception to the legislative scheme, a historical atavism dating back to a
law repealed over 30 years ago that treated all oral copulation as criminal
regardless of age or consent.
We perceive no reason why the Legislature would conclude that persons
who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years
old, as opposed to those who are convicted of voluntary intercourse with
adolescents in that same age group, constitute a class of “particularly incorrigible
offenders” (Newland v. Board of Governors, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 712) who
require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders. We therefore conclude that the
statutory distinction in section 290 requiring mandatory lifetime registration of all
persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation
with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary
sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection
clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.9 This conclusion does not preclude
the Legislature from requiring lifetime registration both for persons convicted of

9
People v. Jones, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 220, is disapproved to the extent
that it is inconsistent with this decision.
22

---

voluntary oral copulation and for those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse,
thus treating both groups the same.
IV. REMEDY FOR THE EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION
When a court concludes that a statutory classification violates the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, it has a choice of
remedies. (See Califano v. Westcott (1979) 443 U.S. 76, 89-91 [court may either
withdraw benefits of welfare statute from favored class or extend those benefits to
excluded class]; Heckler v. Mathews (1984) 465 U.S. 728, 740 [same]; People v.
Liberta (N.Y. 1984) 474 N.E.2d 567, 578 [court can either invalidate rape statute
or expand it to include spousal rape].) Defendant argues that the appropriate
remedy here is to eliminate section 290’s mandatory lifetime registration for those
convicted of voluntary oral copulation with 16- to 17-year-old minors. The
Attorney General points out two other alternatives: One is to reform section 290
by adding a mandatory lifetime registration requirement for persons convicted of
voluntary sexual intercourse with minors ages 16 or 17 years of age, thus treating
such persons the same as those convicted of voluntary oral copulation with such
minors; the other is to invalidate the mandatory lifetime registration provisions in
section 290 as a whole.
In choosing the proper remedy for an equal protection violation, our
primary concern is to ascertain, as best we can, which alternative the Legislature
would prefer. (Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 651 (lead
opn. of Lucas, C. J.); id. at p. 685 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.); Hayes v.
Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 216, 224; People v. Liberta, supra, 474 N.E.2d at
p. 578.) In some cases, a statute contains a severability clause that makes explicit
the legislative preference (see Heckler v. Mathews, supra, 465 U.S. at pp. 739-
740; In re Blaney (1947) 30 Cal.2d 643, 654-655), but we find no such clause in
section 290.
23

---

We reject out of hand the option of declaring section 290’s mandatory
lifetime registration provisions invalid as a whole. These provisions serve an
important and vital public purpose by compelling registration of many serious and
violent sex offenders who require continued public surveillance. Total
invalidation of section 290’s mandatory registration provisions would undoubtedly
be unacceptable to the Legislature. (See People v. Liberta, supra, 474 N.E.2d at
p. 580 [New York Court of Appeals refused to invalidate New York’s laws
prohibiting forcible rape because they did not include rape by a spouse]; State v.
Limon, supra, 122 P.3d at p. 40.)
With respect to the other option mentioned by the Attorney General, that of
reforming section 290 to extend the mandatory lifetime registration requirement to
persons convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with minors, we note that in the
last 10 years the Legislature on three separate occasions has considered but
rejected proposals to do just that. (See ante, at p. 19.) Thus, the Attorney
General’s proposed option would conflict with the Legislature’s intent. On the
other hand, although the Legislature has amended section 290 frequently since its
original enactment in 1947 (and once repealed and immediately reenacted the
entire section (Stats. 1985, ch. 1474, §§ 1, 2, pp. S403-S410)), there is no
legislative history suggesting that since the Legislature’s 1974 repeal of laws
prohibiting all voluntary oral copulation, regardless of age or consent, the
Legislature has ever turned its attention specifically to the application of the
mandatory lifetime registration provisions to those convicted of oral copulation in
violation of section 288a (b)(1).
We conclude, for the reasons discussed above, that the Legislature would
probably find elimination of section 290’s mandatory lifetime registration
requirement for persons convicted of oral copulation under section 288a (b)(1) for
engaging in voluntary oral copulation with 16- or 17-year-old minors preferable to
24

---

either eliminating the entire mandatory lifetime registration provisions of section
290 or imposing a mandatory lifetime registration requirement for persons
convicted of unlawful intercourse under section 261.5 for engaging in sexual
intercourse with minors 16 to 17 years old.
V. DISCRETIONARY REGISTRATION
As mentioned on pages 8 to 9, ante, subdivision (a)(2)(E) of section 290
gives a trial court discretion to order lifetime registration as to any offender even if
the defendant was not convicted of a sexual offense if the court finds that “the
person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of
sexual gratification.” Because of our holding that section 290’s lifetime
registration requirement cannot be constitutionally applied to defendant, the matter
should be remanded to the trial court so it can determine whether defendant falls
within the discretionary registration category described in subdivision (a)(2)(E) of
section 290 as discussed at page 8, ante; if he does, the trial court may, in its
discretion, order defendant to register as a sex offender under that provision.
VI. DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. That court is directed to
remand the case to the trial court with directions to remove the requirement that
defendant register as a sex offender pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A) of section
290, to determine whether defendant is subject to discretionary registration
pursuant to subdivision (a)(2)(E) of section 290, and, if so, to exercise its
discretion whether to require defendant to register under that provision. In all
other respects the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
KENNARD,
J.
WE CONCUR:

25

---

GEORGE, C. J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
FYBEL, J.*

*
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
26

---

DISSENTING OPINION BY BAXTER, J.

I respectfully dissent.
The majority invalidates the Legislature’s decision to require mandatory
lifetime sex offender registration for persons who engage in unlawful voluntary
oral copulation with a minor who is 16 or 17 years of age, because those who
engage in unlawful voluntary intercourse with a same-aged minor are subject to
discretionary sex offender registration. But as any teenager or adult knows,
intercourse is distinct from oral copulation, involving a wholly different sexual act
that, unlike oral copulation, may result in pregnancy and the birth of a child.
Given this significant difference in the potential real-life consequences of the two
acts, the Legislature reasonably could decide that different registration schemes
for the two groups of offenders are appropriate as a matter of public policy. Thus,
while both offenses involve voluntary sexual conduct with minors, the Legislature
chose to leave the imposition of sex offender registration to judicial discretion in
intercourse cases, evidently in recognition of the negative effects of lifetime
registration when voluntary intercourse between individuals in an ongoing
relationship results in the birth of a child. By disregarding this rational basis for
differentiated treatment of the two offender groups, and nullifying a significant
portion of the mandatory registration scheme as it pertains to oral copulation
offenders, the majority intrudes into the Legislature’s domain and indulges its own
notions about what constitutes good public policy.
1

---

I.
As defendant explains in his briefing, he met his 16-year-old female victim
in an Internet chat room. After chatting with the victim a number of times on the
Internet and speaking to her by phone, defendant met her and her young friend at a
beach. Defendant brought rum and orange juice, which the girls drank. The
victim’s friend got drunk and sick. Before taking the girls home, defendant told
the victim, “you owe me something.” The victim orally copulated him.
Defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code1 section 288a,
subdivision (b)(1) (section 288a(b)(1)), a statute that, as relevant here, criminalizes
voluntary oral copulation with a minor who is 16 or 17 years of age. Because of
this conviction, he is subject to mandatory lifetime sex offender registration under
section 290. (§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
This court has acknowledged repeatedly that section 290 serves “an
important and proper remedial purpose” (People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4th
785, 796 [lead opn.]) and furthers “vital public interests” (People v. Ansell (2001)
25 Cal.4th 868, 888-889) by compelling registration of sex offenders who require
continued public surveillance. (See also In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4th 254, 279, fn.
12; maj. opn., ante, at p. 24.) “Given the general danger of recidivism presented
by those convicted of criminal sexual misconduct, and the relatively minor burden
registration represents, the Legislature may adopt a rule of general application for
this class of offenders, and may guard against the demonstrated long-term risk of
reoffense by imposing a permanent obligation on persons convicted of such
crimes.” (Alva, at pp. 279-280.) It is settled, moreover, that the means chosen to
achieve this regulatory goal are reasonable. (Ibid.)

1
Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2

---

In challenging the trial court’s imposition of lifetime registration, defendant
does not challenge the legitimacy of section 290’s remedial purpose. Neither does
he argue that requiring lifetime registration of section 288a(b)(1) offenders is not
rationally related to that purpose. Rather, he makes the limited contention he was
denied equal protection of the laws because persons who violate section 261.5, a
statute that, as relevant here, criminalizes voluntary sexual intercourse with a
minor who is 16 or 17 years of age, are not also subject to mandatory lifetime
registration under section 290.2
Our state constitutional guarantee of equal protection (Cal. Const., art. I,
§ 7) is substantially equivalent to that contained in the United States Constitution
(U.S. Const., 14th Amend.), and our analysis of state and federal equal protection
claims is substantially the same. (See Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27
Cal.4th 537, 571-572; Warden v. State Bar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 628, 648, fn. 12.)
The precise question here is whether these constitutional guarantees of equal
protection are violated by the Legislature’s decision to require mandatory lifetime
sex offender registration for persons who engage in voluntary oral copulation with
a minor 16 or 17 years of age in violation of section 288a(b)(1), while at the same
time providing for discretionary sex offender registration for those who engage in
voluntary intercourse with a same-aged minor in violation of section 261.5,
subdivision (c). (Compare § 290, subd. (a)(1)(A) [mandatory] with § 290, subd.

2
In making this contention, defendant argues that, had he engaged in sexual
intercourse with the minor victim instead of oral copulation, he would not have
been required to register. This argument rests on speculation and conjecture that
the victim would have voluntarily engaged in intercourse with him. Indeed, had
defendant actually attempted to press the victim for intercourse, she might very
well have refused. Of course, any intercourse occurring after such a refusal would
have been forcible and subject to mandatory lifetime sex offender registration.
(§ 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
3

---

(a)(2)(E) [discretionary].) If the two groups of criminal offenders are not
“similarly situated” for this purpose (Cooley v. Superior Court (2000) 29 Cal.4th
228, 253; In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 530), or if there is any reasonably
conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the difference in
treatment (Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 481-482), then the
Legislature’s decision comports with constitutional equal protection principles and
must be upheld as valid.
A. The “Similarly Situated” Requirement
“ ‘ “Persons convicted of different crimes are not similarly situated for
equal protection purposes.” [Citations.] “[I]t is one thing to hold, as did [People
v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236] that persons convicted of the same crime cannot
be treated differently. It is quite another to hold that persons convicted of different
crimes must be treated equally.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Barrera
(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1555, 1565.)
The majority generally acknowledges this precept, but finds it inapplicable
because section 288a(b)(1) and section 261.5 “both concern sexual conduct with
minors” and the “only difference between the two offenses is the nature of the
sexual act.” (Maj. opn, ante, at p. 12.) Notably, however, the majority is unable
to cite to a single state or federal decision finding an equal protection violation
concerning the direct consequences of conviction where, as here, the challenge
involves classes of persons convicted of committing substantively distinct sexual
offenses.
Inexplicably, the majority concludes that persons engaging in oral
copulation with minors are similarly situated to persons engaging in intercourse
with minors, based on clearly inapposite judicial authorities addressing statutes
that, for some persons but not for others, criminalized the same sexual conduct or
4

---

made the same conduct subject to harsher punishment. In Lawrence v. Texas
(2003) 539 U.S. 558, for example, the United States Supreme Court held that a
Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex—but not persons
of the opposite sex—to consensually engage in certain intimate sexual conduct
violates the due process clause of the federal Constitution. Although, as the
majority indicates, Justice O’Connor would have resolved Lawrence under equal
protection principles, Lawrence offered no occasion to address whether persons
who are convicted for engaging in different criminal sexual conduct (e.g., oral
copulation with a minor versus intercourse with a minor) are similarly situated for
purposes of punishment or other consequences. In State v. Limon (Kan. 2005) 122
P.3d 22, the Kansas Supreme Court found Lawrence controlling in finding a
criminal statute violated constitutional equal protection guarantees because the
punishment it authorized for unlawful voluntary sexual conduct between members
of the opposite sex was far less harsh than the punishment it allowed for the same
conduct between members of the same sex. In relying on these authorities to
conclude that persons are similarly situated when they voluntarily engage in
separate and distinct sex-based offenses, only one of which poses the risk of
pregnancy and childbearing, the majority takes a rash jurisprudential leap.3

3
The majority’s other authorities are similarly inapposite. (See maj. opn.,
ante, at pp. 10-12.) Unlike the situation in Newland v. Board of Governors (1977)
19 Cal.3d 705, this case does not concern a civil law or rule that inexplicably and
categorically favors persons convicted of felony sex crimes over persons
convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes. (See also Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966) 384
U.S. 305 [state law that required an unsuccessful appellant to repay the cost of a
transcript used in preparation of the unsuccessful appeal which applied only to
incarcerated appellants but not to those given a suspended sentence, placed on
probation, or sentenced only to pay a fine, violated equal protection]; Cooley v.
Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th 228 [although the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
and the Sexually Violent Predators Act are both civil commitment statutes, habeas
(Footnote continued on next page.)
5

---

B. The “Rational Relationship” Test
Even assuming that persons who engage in voluntary oral copulation in
violation of section 288a(b)(1) are similarly situated to those who engage in
voluntary intercourse in violation of section 261.5, the question remains whether
the Legislature lacked a plausible rationale, based on any reasonably conceivable
state of facts, for distinguishing between the two groups of offenders for
registration purposes.
As the Attorney General suggests, it is reasonably conceivable that adults
who violate section 261.5 are less likely to repeat their offense than adults who
violate section 288a(b)(1). (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 16-17.) Why is that
reasonably conceivable? Because many minors, like many adults, can and do
distinguish between “going all the way” and other sexual acts, especially when the
conduct is voluntary. Viewing section 261.5 as a sex crime involving fewer
potential minor victims (and adult offenders) than section 288a(b)(1), the
Legislature could plausibly conceive that mandatory lifetime registration is not as

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

corpus proceedings under the former and probable cause hearings under the latter
are not functional equivalents, so persons utilizing these procedural protections are
not similarly situated]; In re Eric J., supra, 25 Cal.3d 522 [adults convicted in the
criminal courts and youths adjudged wards of the juvenile courts not similarly
situated with respect to their interest in liberty]; People v. Nguyen (1997) 54
Cal.App.4th 705, 713, 717 [rejecting an equal protection challenge to statutes
providing that a petty thief who had two prior serious felony convictions,
including or in addition to a prior theft-related conviction resulting in
confinement, is subject to punishment under the three strikes law (potentially
resulting in a term of 25 years to life), while at the same time providing that a
petty thief who had two prior serious felony convictions but no prior theft-related
conviction is subject only to misdemeanor punishment].)
6

---

critical in section 261.5 cases because the adults who commit this crime have less
opportunity to do so.
Apart from this plausible rationale, the Legislature, in fact, had specific
public policy reasons for subjecting section 261.5 offenders to discretionary, as
opposed to mandatory, registration. In considering a 1997 bill that among other
things would have amended section 290 to add section 261.5 to the list of offenses
subject to mandatory lifetime registration,4 the Legislature expressly questioned
whether extending the requirement to section 261.5 offenders might have negative
repercussions when voluntary intercourse between individuals in a relationship
results in the birth of a child.5 (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of
Assem. Bill No. 1303 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 16, 1997, p. 4
[“How many teen[] mothers would want the father of their child to plead guilty of

4
The legislative history discloses the author of the 1997 bill had sought to
add section 261.5 to the list of offenses subject to mandatory lifetime registration
in light of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act of 1994 (the Jacob Wetterling Act) (42 U.S.C.
§ 14071), which conditions a state’s receipt of federal funding for drug control on
compliance with the act. In considering the bill, the Legislature debated whether
mandatory lifetime registration for section 261.5 offenders was necessary to
maintain anti-drug funding under that act. (Assem. Com. on Public Safety,
Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1303 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 16,
1997, pp. 2-3.)
Neither the majority nor the parties address whether judicial elimination of
mandatory registration for section 288a(b)(1) offenders causes California to be out
of compliance with the Jacob Wetterling Act.
5
This legislative history undermines defendant’s bald statement that the only
logical explanation for the Legislature’s disparate treatment of section 288a(b)(1)
offenders and section 261.5 offenders is “antipathy against sexual acts historically
associated with homosexuals, as opposed to the heterosexual norm of penile-
vaginal intercourse.”
7

---

statutory rape and be subject to a life time registration requirement?”; “Will more
cases go to trial instead of settle[] if a registration requirement is mandated?”].)
Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine that lifetime sex offender registration of a
parent may have the unfortunate effect of stigmatizing a child, especially when the
child continues to live with the registering parent. At the same, moreover, the
Legislature could plausibly conceive that recidivism was much less of a problem
in these situations.
In light of such considerations, a legislative decision to preserve the
distinction between intercourse offenders and oral copulation offenders—by
continuing to provide for discretionary registration for the former—seems both
perfectly sound and particularly appropriate for cases where the minor victim and
the section 261.5 offender attempt to establish or maintain a familial relationship
around a child resulting from the offense.6 In providing for a dual approach to
registration, the Legislature certainly was well aware that the availability of
judicial discretion in intercourse cases did not mean all section 261.5 offenders,
including predatory offenders lacking any preexisting relationship with their
victims, would avoid registration. It simply meant lifetime registration would not

6
This is not an insignificant percentage of the total number of intercourse
cases. Statistics defendant cites indicate that in 30 percent of the cases where teen
mothers become pregnant by males over the age of 21, there is a relationship
between the parents at the time the child is born that would be fiscally and socially
beneficial for the state to encourage. (See Napa County, District Attorney Web
Page, Statutory Rape <http://www.co.napa.ca.us/GOV/Departments/
DeptPage.asp?DID=22400&LID=280> [as of Mar. 6, 2006] [“In 70% of the cases
of teen mothers becoming pregnant by males over 21, the relationships end before
the birth. The teens have to seek financial aid from the state. These teen families
cost the state between $5 to $7 billion each year. It costs more than $10,000 for
each teen pregnancy, childbirth, and medical care throughout the first year.”].)
8

---

be mandatory for all section 261.5 offenders, including those whose poor
judgment resulted in a girlfriend’s pregnancy or their own pregnancy.
Seizing on the People’s concession that persons who engage in sexual
intercourse often also engage in oral copulation, the majority concludes that,
therefore, the “effect of the father’s mandatory registration on the mother and
child does not depend on whether the registration is imposed for the act of sexual
intercourse or the act of oral copulation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 20.) While this
sort of consideration might properly be raised in a case where a defendant faces
mandatory lifetime registration after having committed both oral copulation and
intercourse resulting in impregnation, it is, as far as this case and this defendant
are concerned, entirely hypothetical and inappropriately asserted. (See People v.
Garcia (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1, 11 [defendant lacks standing to assert the equal
protection claims of hypothetical felons]; People v. Superior Court (Manuel G.)
(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 915, 934 [defendant must show that his rights are affected
injuriously by the law he attacks and that he is actually aggrieved by its
operation].)
In a related vein, it was suggested at oral argument on this matter that the
Legislature could have addressed the special public policy concerns regarding
pregnancy and familial issues by expressly limiting the availability of
discretionary registration to only those section 261.5 cases involving impregnated
victims. While that may have been one way to handle the matter, “ ‘[t]he equal
protection clause is not an authorization for the courts to second-guess the
Legislature on the best way to deal with aspects of a problem. It protects classes
of people from arbitrary discrimination.’ ” (Jasperson v. Jessica’s Nail Clinic
(1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1099, 1110.)
In applying the rational basis test to reject an analogous argument regarding
a legislative classification, the United States Supreme Court explained: “Even if
9

---

the classification involved here is to some extent both underinclusive and
overinclusive, and hence the line drawn by Congress imperfect, it is nevertheless
the rule that in a case like this ‘perfection is by no means required.’ [Citations.]
The provision ‘does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification
“is not made with mathematical nicety . . . .” ’ [Citations.] . . . [¶] . . . Whether we,
or the District Court, think Congress was unwise in not choosing a means more
precisely related to its primary purpose is irrelevant.” (Vance v. Bradley (1979)
440 U.S. 93, 108-109.) As one California court aptly observed in quoting the high
court on this very point, the fact that a classification “sweeps more broadly than
necessary to achieve the legislative purpose, or that other offenses could have been
included [in the classification] that would have furthered the legislative purpose,
does not undermine [the] conclusion that the classification adopted by the
Legislature bears a fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” (People v.
Conley (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 566, 576.)
By limiting himself to an equal protection challenge, defendant essentially
concedes there is an otherwise proper rational basis for requiring mandatory
lifetime sex offender registration of section 288a(b)(1) offenders such as himself.
Consequently, the issue before us is not—as the majority erroneously suggests—
the public policy debate over whether “judicial discretion is a sufficient safeguard
to protect against repeat offenders who engage in sexual intercourse but not with
offenders who engage in oral copulation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18.) Rather, the
issue is whether the two offender groups are similarly situated, and if so, whether
there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational
basis for the Legislature’s dual approach to registration. (Kasler v. Lockyer,
supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 481-482.)
As indicated, even assuming, generously, that the two offender groups are
similarly situated, the bottom line is that the Legislature had plausible rationales—
10

---

based on reasonably conceivable facts related to (1) conceivably lower incident
and recidivism rates for voluntary intercourse crimes and (2) the potential for
pregnancy and childbearing in voluntary intercourse cases—for authorizing
discretionary imposition of sex offender registration for section 261.5 offenders
while mandating lifetime registration for section 288a(b)(1) offenders. Under
these circumstances, no violation of equal protection principles appears.
II.
If it were up to me, I might agree that discretionary registration would be
just as appropriate in certain voluntary oral copulation cases as it is in voluntary
intercourse cases. But judicial authority to second-guess the legislative
determinations of the Legislature is “extremely limited,” and it is well settled that
“ ‘the legislative branch is entitled to deference from the courts because of the
constitutional separation of powers.’ ” (Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Superior
Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 807, 814; Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.) In choosing to nullify
the Legislature’s policy judgment requiring lifetime sex offender registration for
section 288a(b)(1) offenders, the majority shows a startling disregard for the
legislative prerogative to distinguish between classes of offenders whose crimes
involve substantially different conduct and pose differing real-life consequences.
Although this court should not shirk its duty to declare a statute invalid
when its “ ‘unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears’ ” (In
re Dennis M. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 444, 453), the separation of powers doctrine bars
us from positioning ourselves as a superlegislature willing to second-guess the
plausible reasons supporting nonuniform statutory consequences for persons
convicted of separate crimes that raise separate public policy concerns. Given the
important and vital public purpose of section 290’s mandatory lifetime sex
offender registration provisions, and the rational basis underlying its alternative
11

---

provision for discretionary registration for violators of section 261.5, I see no
legitimate basis for the majority’s disturbance of the legislative scheme.
The majority opinion is sure to prompt a spate of equal protection
challenges by defendants arguing their crimes cannot be subject to punishment or
any other consequence perceived as more severe than that authorized for other
distinct but seemingly comparable crimes. At the very least, we may expect
challenges regarding the differing sentences and registration consequences
authorized for other section 288a offenders and other section 261.5 offenders.
(See maj. opn., ante, at p. 6.) Today’s decision offers little choice but to overrule
legislative values in such cases.
III.
Defendant admits he came upon the minor victim in an Internet chat room,
that they then met at a beach away from her parents, and that there he engaged her
in oral copulation after furnishing her with alcohol.
In proper deference to the legislative determination that significant public
safety concerns for minors justify mandatory lifetime registration for this type of
high-risk sex offender, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and
remand the matter to that court with directions to affirm the trial court judgment.
BAXTER, J.
12

---

See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion People v. Hofsheier
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 117 Cal.App.4th 438
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S124636
Date Filed: March 6, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Santa Cruz
Judge: Arthur Danner

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Moona
Nandi, Eric D. Share and John H. Deist, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Paul Couenhoven
Sixth District Appellate Project
100 N. Winchester Blvd., Suite 310
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 241-6171

John H. Deist
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(415) 703-5855

---

Opinion Information

Date:	Docket Number:
Mon, 03/06/2006	S124636

Disposition
Mar 6 2006	Opinion: Affirmed in part/reversed in part

Dockets
May 7 2004	Record requested
May 7 2004	Petition for review filed   by Atty Gen. counsel for respondent
May 10 2004	Received Court of Appeal record   file jacket/briefs/sealed envelope/transcripts
Jun 4 2004	Received:   letter from the Attorney General, dated June 4, 2004 regarding a recent decision from the 3 DCA.
Jun 9 2004	Petition for review granted (criminal case)   Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown and Moreno, JJ.
Jul 8 2004	Counsel appointment order filed   Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, the Sixth District Appellate Program is hereby appointed to represent appellant on his appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits shall be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date respondent's opening brief on the merits is filed.
Jul 8 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for respondent {The People}.
Jul 23 2004	Request for extension of time filed   Appellants requesting to Sept. 20, 2004 to file the answer brief on the merits.
Jul 29 2004	Extension of time granted   On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including September 20, 2004.
Sep 17 2004	Request for extension of time filed   appellant requesting to 9/27/04 to file answer brief on the merits.
Sep 21 2004	Extension of time granted   On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including September 27, 2004.
Sep 28 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed   by counsel for appellant (Vincent Hofsheier). (40k)
Oct 15 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by respondent requesting to October 25, 2004 to file reply brief.
Oct 20 2004	Extension of time granted   to and including Oct. 25, 2004 for respondent to file the reply brief on the merits.
Oct 25 2004	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)   by respondent.
Nov 18 2004	Filed:   Motion to strike argument IV of reply brief on merits or for leave to file supplemental brief in response - by counsel for appellant (Vicent Hofsheier).
Nov 22 2004	Filed:   Appellant's motion to strike argument IV of respondent's reply brief on the merits is DENIED. Appellant's request to file supplemental brief limited to argumant IV in reply brief is GRANTED. The SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IS DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS of the filing of this order and MAY NOT EXCEED 2,800 WORDS.
Nov 22 2004	Request for judicial notice filed (granted case)   By appellant {Vincent Hofsheier}.
Dec 10 2004	Request for extension of time filed   requesting extension to Dec. 27, 2004 to file appellant's supplemental brief.
Dec 16 2004	Extension of time granted   to and including Dec. 27, 2004 for appellant to file the supplemental brief.
Dec 28 2004	Supplemental brief filed   by counsel for appellant (Vincent Hofsheier). (40k)
Dec 28 2004	Request for judicial notice filed (granted case)   By appellant {Vincent Hofsheier}.
Feb 2 2005	Compensation awarded counsel   Atty Couenhoven - Sixth District Appellate Program
Nov 9 2005	Case ordered on calendar   December 7, 2005, 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles
Nov 16 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Filed   By John Hancock of The California Channel.
Nov 18 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Granted   subject to the conditions set forth in rule 980, California Rules of Court.
Nov 18 2005	Filed:   Letter from Attorney General stipulating to Justice Kennard's participation in the case notwithstanding her absence from oral argument on December 7, 2005.
Nov 21 2005	Filed:   Letter from Paul Couenhoven, counsel for Vincent Hofsheier, stipulating to Justice Kennard's participation in this case even though she will not be present at oral argument.
Nov 28 2005	Order vacated (case still open)   The order filed Nov. 18, 2005, granting media coverage is hereby vacated.
Dec 7 2005	Cause argued and submitted
Jan 12 2006	Request for judicial notice granted   The motions of appellant Hofsheier for judicial notice, filed on November 22, 2004 and December 28, 2004.
Mar 6 2006	Opinion filed: Affirmed in part, reversed in part   and remanded to the trial court with directions to remove the requirement that defendant register as a sex offender pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A) of section 290, to determine whether defendant is subject to discretionary registration pursuant to subdivision (a)(2)(E) of section 290, and if so, to exercise its discretion whether to require defendant to register under that provision. Majority opinion by Kennard, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, JJ. and Fybel, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. Dissenting Opinion by Baxter, J.
Apr 6 2006	Remittitur issued (criminal case)
Apr 12 2006	Received:   receipt of the remittitur
Jul 12 2006	Compensation awarded counsel   Atty Couenhoven - Sixth District Appellate Program

Briefs
Jul 8 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 28 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed
Oct 25 2004	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)

If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website