People v. I.B.

Filed 8/28/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098871

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JV138181)

v.

I.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Paul L. Seave, Judge. Affirmed.

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Edrina Anderson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The Legislature in the past few years has overhauled certain juvenile court laws through juvenile justice realignment. The realignment included closing Department of

1

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and transferring DJJ’s responsibilities to county facilities. Under Penal Code section 290.008 (undesignated section references are to the Penal Code), minors who were committed to DJJ before juvenile justice realignment for certain sex offenses, including assault with intent to commit rape, must register as sex offenders on discharge even after DJJ’s closure. But this section does not apply to minors who commit the same offenses after juvenile justice realignment. Minor I.B. was committed to DJJ for two counts of assault with intent to commit rape. At his reentry hearing, the juvenile court imposed a probation condition requiring him to register as a sex offender under section 290.008. On appeal, minor challenges section 290.008 on equal protection grounds for its alleged unjustifiable differential treatment of minors like him and minors who are later committed to county facilities. He also urges us to apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing his challenge. We reject these arguments. The rational basis standard applies because the sex offender registration requirement for minor does not involve a loss of liberty and thus does not implicate a fundamental right. And a rational basis exists to justify the differential treatment of minors already in DJJ’s custody and minors later committed to county facilities, because the Legislature could have determined the latter have a lower risk of recidivism due to more effective treatment. We affirm the dispositional order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, minor admitted two counts of assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220). The juvenile court committed minor to a Level B placement. After minor completed his Level B placement program, the juvenile court committed him to DJJ in 2019 due to multiple probation violations. Minor was discharged from DJJ in April 2023. At minor’s reentry disposition hearing, the juvenile court terminated DJJ’s jurisdiction and granted minor formal probation. Minor’s counsel objected to a probation condition that required minor to