Wednesday, October 31, 2012

U.S. v. Johnson, No. 11-30256 (10-30-12) (Clifton with Silverman and N. Smith).
The past is never past; it is always present.  Especially when it comes to prior sex offenses, even ones two decades old.  Here, the defendant was convicted of being a prohibited possessor.  He was placed on SR. As a condition, he was ordered to undergo a sexual offender assessment.  The defendant had two prior convictions (both rapes, one of a minor, and with a weapon involved).  He had a prior assessment done, while incarcerated, but it could not be located.  He appealed the condition, arguing that the priors were too stale, and that the present offense was not a sex offense.  The 9th affirmed the condition, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.  The condition was only an assessment, not treatment, and the present offense involved a firearm, as did one of the two prior sex offenses, both of which were violent. There was enough of a connection, and the assessment was ordered when a previous one was lost.

Stankewitz v. Wong, No. 10-99001 (10-29-12).
This was summarized yesterday. However, it should be noted (and was not in the summary) that this was a tremendous victory for AFPD Harry Simon, ED Calif (Sacramento). Congratulations.


Post a Comment

<< Home