People v. Salazar CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 7, 2016 No. F070281Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 290.5 does not violate equal protection principles by requiring lifetime sex offender registration for those convicted of rape by force while exempting those convicted of rape by threat of public authority, as the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in public safety.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 290.5 violate equal protection by distinguishing between different types of rape convictions regarding the termination of sex offender registration requirements?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no merit to Salazar’s equal protection claim.”

“The Legislature could reasonably have found that defendants who commit rape through the use of force, violence, etc., pose a greater danger to the public and are in greater need of supervision”

“Thus, there exists a rational basis for the Legislature to make it more difficult for defendants who commit rape through the use of force, violence, etc., to be relieved of the lifetime registration requirement”

Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Salazar CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F070281 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FP004047A) v.

ANDREW MICHAEL SALAZAR, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Harry A. Staley, Judge. Law Offices of Robert D. Salisbury and Robert D. Salisbury for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Kerry Ramos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant Andrew Michael Salazar, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to terminate his lifetime sex offender requirement. We affirm. FACTS In 1994, Salazar was convicted in Kern County Superior Court of rape by force or fear (Pen. Code § 261, subd. (2)),1 false imprisonment (§ 236), and spousal abuse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and sentenced to an eight-year prison term. On August 24, 1999, Salazar was arrested for a parole violation and subsequently committed to prison to finish serving a term on the violation. On June 30, 2000, Salazar was convicted of misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a spouse and subsequently returned to prison to serve a term for violating his parole. On June 13, 2001, Salazar was released on parole. On July 25, 2001, Salazar was arrested for violating his parole and subsequently returned to prison to finish a term on the violation. On August 4, 2002, Salazar was discharged from parole. On June 30, 2014, Salazar filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to section 4852.01 asking the court to issue a certificate of rehabilitation, a recommendation to the Governor for a full pardon, and an order relieving him from sex offender registration requirements (§§ 290-290.46) and removing his picture and information from the Internet. In the moving papers, Salazar contended that his right to the equal protection of the law would be violated if his lifetime sex offender registration and the publishing of his picture and information on the Internet were not terminated. On August 15, 2014, at a hearing on Salazar’s petition, the court took the matter under submission. Later that day, it issued an order granting Salazar’s petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon and denying his request to be relieved of his

People v. Salazar CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief