People v. Barrientos CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 2022 No. B312858Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his equal protection challenge to mandatory sex offender registration by failing to object at sentencing, and that even if not forfeited, the claim is meritless under binding Supreme Court precedent.

Issues

Whether the defendant's equal protection challenge to mandatory sex offender registration was forfeited by failure to object at sentencing.
Whether mandatory sex offender registration for a conviction under Penal Code section 288.4, subdivision (b) violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The registration requirement was imposed at sentencing in 2017. Appellant did not object at the time, and he cannot now, years later, contend that this requirement should be inapplicable to his crime.”

“We decline appellant’s invitation to depart from the Johnson precedent.”

Filed 4/26/22 P. v. Barrientos CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B312858

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA070845) v.

ALFONSO BARRIENTOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa M. Strassner, Commissioner. Affirmed. Law Offices of Bruce W. Nickerson and Bruce W. Nickerson, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In 2017, appellant Alfonso Barrientos met someone he thought was a 16-year-old girl online and arranged to have sex with her. The girl was in fact a police decoy. Appellant pled no contest to meeting a minor for lewd purposes in violation of Penal Code section 288.4, subdivision (b),1 which required him to register as a sex offender under section 290. In 2021, the superior court terminated appellant’s probation early, but denied his motion to terminate the registration requirement. On appeal, appellant poses an equal protection challenge to section 290, asserting that registration for certain sex offenders is discretionary, and he should not be subject to mandatory registration because he did not interact with a real minor. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to appellant, in January 2017 he was “searching for adult companionship on an adult site called Backpage.” Appellant, then age 47, responded to an ad by “Mandy,” who was purportedly 19 years old. However, “Mandy” soon told appellant she was 16, about to turn 17. Appellant replied, “Oh good, you are younger. I love it.” However, “Mandy” was a police decoy. When appellant arrived at the motel where he and “Mandy” arranged to meet, he was arrested. Appellant was charged with felony meeting a minor for lewd purposes in violation of section 288.4, subdivision (b), and

People v. Barrientos CA2/4

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B312858

ALFONSO BARRIENTOS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, J.

WILLHITE, ACTING P.J.

CURREY, J.

AI Brief