People v. Vigil CA4/3

Filed 10/16/25 P. v. Vigil CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064186

v. (Super. Ct. No. M-20093)

LOUIS DAVID VIGIL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jay Moorhead, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Kerry Ramos and Sahar Karimi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Louis David Vigil appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to terminate his sex offender registration under Penal Code section 290.5, subdivision (a) (all undesignated statutory references are to this code). Vigil argues the court abused its discretion in evaluating the statutory factors to determine “whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.” (§ 290.5, subd. (a)(3).) We agree. We reverse the order and remand the matter with directions to grant Vigil’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1995, Vigil pleaded guilty to a certain sex crime, triggering a duty to register as a sex offender under section 290. Twenty seven years later, in October 2022, he filed a petition to terminate his sex offender registration pursuant to section 290.5. He alleged he was a “[t]ier 2” offender and had registered for at least 20 years, making him eligible for terminating his registration requirement. The prosecution objected to granting the petition and requested a hearing because “[c]ommunity safety would be significantly enhanced by the petitioner’s continued registration.” It also filed an opposition with supporting documents. Vigil filed a response to the opposition with supporting documents.