Good

Good v. Superior Court

Good Law
158 Cal. App. 4th 1494·71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 125
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 2008A117317California14,556 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Marchiano, J.

Proposition 69, the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act of 2004, substantially expanded the range of persons who must submit DNA samples to the state’s forensic identification databank. The expansion included misdemeanants who must *1499 register as sex offenders pursuant to Penal Code former section 290. 1 In this case we hold that Proposition 69 requires misdemeanants who must register as sex offenders to provide DNA samples, regardless of whether the conviction triggering the registration requirement occurred before or after the 2004 passage of Proposition 69.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Sylver Dean Good was convicted of indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1)), a misdemeanor, in 1996. 2 Because of this conviction, Good has an ongoing lifetime obligation to annually register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act, and to update his registration whenever he changes his residence. (§§ 290, subds. (b) & (c), 290.012, subd. (a), 290.013, subd. (a).) 3

At the time of Good’s conviction, collection of DNA samples was governed by former section 290.2, which only required DNA samples from defendants who were required…

dissent Opinion

Margulies, J.

I respectfully dissent. I have no quarrel with the majority’s conclusion that Good, as a past sex offender, is a person required to provide a DNA sample under Penal Code section 296. 1 What the majority overlooks, however, is that collection of a DNA sample under the DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1998 (Stats. 1998, ch. 696, § 2) (Act) does not follow automatically from a past offender’s qualification under section 296. Rather, the Act very specifically delineates, and therefore limits, the circumstances under which a DNA sample may be collected. Those limitations preclude local law enforcement officials from ordering the appearance of a person to provide a DNA sample just because he or she qualifies under section 296.

Section 296.1, subdivision (a) is the primary statute governing when and where DNA samples are to be collected. It states that “[t]he specimens, samples, and print impressions required by this chapter shall be collected from persons described in subdivision (a) of Section 296 for present and past qualifying offenses of record as follows . . . .” It then specifies, in six separate paragraphs, when samples are to be collected. All of…

Opinion

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman and Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

Proposition 69, the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act of 2004, substantially expanded the range of persons who must submit DNA samples to the state's forensic identification data bank. The expansion included misdemeanants who must register as sex offenders pursuant to former Penal Code section 290. [1] In this case we hold that Proposition 69 requires misdemeanants who must register as sex offenders to provide DNA samples, regardless of whether the conviction triggering the registration requirement occurred before or after the 2004 passage of Proposition 69.

Petitioner Sylver Dean Good was convicted of indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1)), a misdemeanor, in 1996. [2] Because of this conviction, Good has an ongoing, lifetime obligation to annually register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act, and to update his registration whenever he changes his residence. (§§ 290, subds. (b) & (c),…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.