Parker

People v. Parker

Bad Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 1297·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1192·46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7114
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 2006B182681California3,863 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Joseph Milton Parker appeals from the order denying his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (Pen. Code, § 4852.01 et seq.) Parker, an Arizona resident, contends that the statute’s five-year California residency requirement violates his constitutional right to travel by providing for disparate treatment of resident and nonresident ex-felons.

We conclude that the residency requirement does not burden Parker’s constitutional right to travel. California has a legitimate and substantial governmental interest in requiring five years of residency in order to evaluate the conduct critical to a determination of whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate stating that he or she is rehabilitated and worthy of a pardon. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1989, Parker was convicted in San Luis Obispo County of the felonies of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5), and enticing a female under 18 years of age for purposes of prostitution or illicit sexual intercourse (§ 266). Parker was granted probation including a term in county jail. In 1990, Parker ended his residence in California and established a new residence in Arizona. He has…

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.