 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patterson v. State7/23/1999
dress it.
ASORA is not overbroad.
Patterson also attacks ASORA claiming that it is overbroad because the program does not provide an individual analysis of an offender's actual potential for recidivism. Patterson's overbreadth attack does not identify any particular constitutionally protected conduct that ASORA allegedly prohibits that was not already raised in his other constitutional objections. Reducing Patterson's argument to its core, he claims that the legislature should have created a more complex scheme than it did, one that included a determination of each offender's potential for recidivism. Essentially, Patterson has restated the due process claims that we rejected above. We conclude that Patterson has not met his burden to show that ASORA is overbroad.
ASORA is not a bill of attainder.
Next, Patterson claims that ASORA is a bill of attainder because it imposes a punishment without trial on the group that he is a member of - convicted sex offenders. This argument fails because the duty to register is not punishment.
ASORA does not violate Patterson's plea agreement.
Finally, Patterson claims that applying ASORA to him violates his plea agreement with the State. The legislature had not enacted ASORA when Patterson entered his plea. Patterson obtained the direct benefit of his plea; he was convicted and sentenced for sexual abuse of a minor.
Patterson maintains that the duty to register is now a direct consequence of sex offense conviction. In Limani v. State, we discussed the differences between a "collateral consequence" and a "direct result" of a conviction. We adopted the convention that a collateral consequence is one that originates outside the court. Patterson relies on two legislative changes to the Criminal Rules to support his argument that registration is a direct consequence. The first is the legislature's amendment to Criminal Rule 11 requiring the court to advise a defendant of the duty to register as a sex offender if that defendant is entering a plea of guilty or no contest to a sex offense charge. The second is the amendment to Criminal Rule 32 that requires that a judgment of conviction for a sex offense include a notification of the defendant's duty to register as a sex offender.
In Peterson v. State, a decision also being issued today, we hold that the failure to warn a person of the ASORA registration requirement when a person enters a plea to a sex offense may establish manifest inJustice for purposes of Criminal Rule 11(c)(3). But we reached this Conclusion based on the legislature's apparent purpose when it amended Rule 11(c) to require this warning. The registration requirement remains a collateral consequence of the plea. ASORA imposes the duty to register, not the sentencing court.
Here, as in Petersen, we conclude that the duty to register is not a direct result of Patterson's plea agreement, but a collateral consequence. Therefore, we conclude that Patterson has not shown a violation of his plea agreement.
Conclusion
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|