People v. Franklin

PEOPLE, Respondent v. DONALD DWAYNE FRANKLIN, Appellant No. S068112 C.A. 2nd, Div. 7, No. B109817 California Supreme Court Filed April 15, 1998
        Appellant`s petition for review GRANTED.


[Editor's Note - For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Journal's Ruling column brief which summarized the earlier decision of the lower court.]


CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

Person subject to sex offender registration must notify law enforcement of move to location outside California.

        The C.A. 2nd has concluded that a person under the sex offender registration law had to inform law enforcement of his move to a location outside the state of California.
        David Franklin was subject to the sex offender registration law as a result of his 1985 convictions of child molestation and child sodomy. In the latter part of 1994 and early part of 1995, Franklin lived in Hollywood and Wilmington. In May 1995, Franklin and his family moved to Texas. Franklin did not notify any California law enforcement agency of his address change. In December 1995, Franklin was arrested in Texas and thereafter returned to California. Franklin was charged with two counts of child molestation, two violations of the sex offender registration law, and various felony conviction enhancements and strikes. He waived jury trial in exchange for the dismissal of the two child molestation counts. After a a bench trial, Franklin was acquitted of one registration violation but found guilty on the other. Both strikes were found true. Franklin contended that the conviction for violating the sex offender registration was error since his duty to notify law enforcement of his change of address existed only while he was in California.
        The C.A. 2nd affirmed. "Penal Code section 290 imposes registration and address change notification duties upon persons convicted of specified sexual offenses. . . . The duty to register and give notice of address changes is a continuing one." While the statute does state that the address change notification applies while a person resides in California, the statute is still applied when a person leaves the state. When Franklin left for Texas, he was still in California. His departure created a notification of address change duty. Had Franklin fulfilled his notification duty, established residence in Texas, then moved again (but not back to California), he could make the argument that notification was not necessary. However, since Franklin was a California resident at the time he left, he should have notified law enforcement of his move to Texas.

        People v. Franklin, No. B109817, filed January 21, 1998 by Woods, J.
        The full text of this case appears at 98 Daily Journal DAR 723, January 23, 1998.