People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 12/4/13 P. v. Johnson CA3 Reposted to provide correct document NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072646

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F05748)

PETER JESSE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Officers executed a search warrant at defendant Peter Jesse Johnson’s home, conducted an analysis of his computer, and located more than 30 videos depicting minors (some under 10 years old) committing acts of sexual intercourse with adults. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession or control of child pornography. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).)1 The trial court granted defendant’s motion to reduce the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

offense to a misdemeanor (§ 17, subd. (b)), denied his equal protection challenge to the imposition of sex offender registration, and placed defendant on formal probation for three years with various terms and conditions, including 360 days in jail and the requirement that defendant register as a sex offender. On appeal, defendant reasserts his claim that it violates equal protection to impose mandatory lifetime sex offender registration on his misdemeanor conviction for possession of child pornography. We conclude the holding in People v. Gonzalez (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 132 (Gonzalez) is on point. A person convicted of possessing child pornography, an offense requiring mandatory registration, is not similarly situated to a person convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, an offense for which registration is at the discretion of the trial court, and hence defendant’s equal protection claim lacks merit. We will affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION Sex offender registration is mandatory for the sex offenses specified in section 290, subdivision (c). (§ 290, subd. (c).) The offense involved in this case, a violation of section 311.11, is included in section 290, subdivision (c). All other sex offenses are subject to registration at the sentencing court’s discretion “if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.” (§ 290.006.) Defendant claims it violates equal protection to impose mandatory registration on his misdemeanor section 311.11 violation, when similarly situated offenders who commit unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of section 261.5 are only subject to discretionary registration. Defendant cites People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Hofsheier) in support of his contention. That case involved a 22–year–old man who engaged in nonforcible oral copulation with a 16–year–old girl. (Id. at pp. 1192–1193.)