In Re Wells

We have before us in this habeas corpus proceeding the question of whether the recidivist provision of Penal Code section 647a [1] (child molestation) violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 6.) This section states that every person who "annoys or molests" [2] a child under the age of 18 is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and can be punished by no more than a six-month jail sentence or a $500 fine. For a second or subsequent offense, however, or upon proof of a prior conviction under section 288 (lewd and lascivious acts upon the person of a child under the age of 14), section 647a prescribes an indeterminate prison term of one year to life. [3] In other words, here, as in In re Lynch, the statute requires the "enormous leap" from an ordinary misdemeanor to a life-maximum felony either for the repetition of the offense or for its commission by one who has previously committed a more serious sex offense — namely, a violation of section 288. [4] (8 Cal.3d at p. 434 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 ].)

In Lynch our Supreme Court held that the identical leap required under the indecent exposure…