Fioretti

People v. Fioretti

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 362·54 Cal. App. 4th 1209·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 367·97 Daily Journal DAR 5897·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3445
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 10, 1997H015792California2,884 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bamattre-Monoukian, J.

Appellant Joseph Lawrence Fioretti was convicted of violating Penal Code section 290, subdivision (f), which requires that sex offenders subject to the registration requirements of section 290 inform authorities of any change of residence. In defense he maintained he was not required to reregister under section 290, subdivision (f), because he had been relieved of all registration requirements in 1983, when his probation was discharged and his record was cleared by court order pursuant to section 1203.4. At the time appellant obtained his section 1203.4 clearance, however, section 290.1, enacted effective January of 1982, was the law. (Stats. 1981, ch. 105, § 1, p. 794.) That section provides that registration requirements continue notwithstanding a section 1203.4 record clearance.

Appellant argues here that section 290.1 cannot be applied to him without violating constitutional ex post facto protections because it was enacted after he had committed his original offense in 1980 and it retroactively increased the punishment for that offense. We reject appellant’s ex post facto claim and affirm his conviction for violating section 290, subdivision…

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.